HBM4EU Leaflethttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/human-biomonitoring/hbm4eu-leaflet-2/view
No publisherchemicalshuman healthhuman biomonitoringhealth impacts2017/06/08 14:49:44 GMT+2FileKnown distribution of the tiger mosquito in Europe (Aedes albopictus)https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/presence-of-aedes-albopictus-the-tiger-mosquito-in-europe-in-january-3
The maps displays information and the presence/absence of Aedes albopictus.
RED: An established population (evidence of reproduction and overwintering) of the species has been observed in at least one municipality within the administrative unit.
YELLOW: The species has been introduced (but without confirmed establishment) in the administrative unit within the last 5 years of the distribution status date
DARK GREEN: Field surveys or studies on mosquitoes were conducted and no introduction (during the last 5 years) or no established population of the species have been reported
MEDIUM GREY: No data for the last 5 years are available to local experts
LIGHT GREY: No information is available about field studies on mosquitoes during the last 5 years.No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).climate changeclimatehuman healthdiseases2016/12/20 17:30:00 GMT+2FigureCurrent European distribution of Ixodus ricinus tickshttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/european-distribution-of-borrelia-burgdorferi-1
The maps displays information and the prsence/absence of Ixodes ricinus
RED The species is known to have been present at least in one municipality within the administrative unit.
YELLOW The species has been introduced in the administrative unit without confirmed establishment.
LIGHT GREY No information is available on the existence of field studies on ticks.
No publisherhttp://ecdc.europa.eu/en/pages/legalnotice.aspxhuman healthdiseases2016/12/20 17:30:00 GMT+2FigureOrganisations participating in the consortiumhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/human-biomonitoring/organisations-participating-in-the-consortium
The HBM4EU consortium includes lead partners from each of the participating countries, as well as the EEA. The lead partners will work with a network of linked third parties at national level, to be coordinated via the National Hub in each country.
The HBM4EU Project Coordinator is the German Environment Agency.

]]>No publisherchemicalshuman healthhuman biomonitoringhealth impacts2016/06/09 14:30:00 GMT+2PageHuman biomonitoringhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/human-biomonitoring
No publisherchemicalshuman healthhuman biomonitoringhealth impacts2016/06/09 14:30:00 GMT+2FolderSubstances prioritised for action by the EU Policy Boardhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/human-biomonitoring/outcome-of-assessment-of-proposed/view
Produced by the EU Policy Board in September 2015No publisherchemicalshuman healthhuman biomonitoringhealth impacts2016/06/09 14:30:00 GMT+2FileCriteria of prioritisationhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/human-biomonitoring/criteria-of-prioritisation/view
Produced by the EU Policy Board in September 2015No publisherchemicalshuman healthhuman biomonitoringhealth impacts2016/06/09 14:30:00 GMT+2FileScoping documents for the prioritised substanceshttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/human-biomonitoring/scoping-documents-for-the-prioritised-substances/view
Produced by the HBM4EU consortium in 2016No publisherchemicalshuman healthhuman biomonitoringhealth impacts2016/06/09 14:30:00 GMT+2FileTransport (leaflet)https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/a-europe-to-thrive-in/transport-leaflet/view
FRESH outputs are available here for download and include a brochure that presents the conceptual approach used to frame project work and summarises the main conclusions, as well as a narrative report on how challenges and opportunities for the elderly population living in cities.

In the article below, we review how our understanding of the complex links between the environment, human health and well-being has evolved in recent years, and reflect on how this is addressed in the current EU policy framework. Conceptual models are available that can help us to structure our thinking and map available evidence to explore this relationship, as well as indicators that focus on the social and environmental dimensions of health and well-being.

A complex challenge

The health and well-being of human societies is intrinsically linked to the quality of the environment in which they live. Over the past century, evidence of the links between toxic, infectious and physical stressors in air, water, soil and food and negative health outcomes for local communities has accumulated. This has driven the implementation of targeted policy actions to address the environmental determinants of health.

This compartmentalised and hazard focused approach continues to deliver significant benefits for health. However, it is inadequate when tackling the multiple stressors and systemic challenges we face today, such as climate change, resource depletion and biodiversity loss. At the same time, our understanding of the human condition has been expanding to capture well-being, as well as health. When considering well-being in relation to the physical environment, it is important to address health stressors, and foster the positive aspects that make for a healthy and stimulating environment.

Recent framing of environment, health and well-being captures multiple and cumulative exposures, upstream drivers and feedback systems over expanded temporal and spatial scales. Health and well-being outcomes are now understood to be embedded in a wider social context, including demographic shifts towards an aging population, urbanisation, lifestyle and consumption changes, and shifts in the global disease burden from communicable to non-communicable disease. For example, shifts in demography and disease burden can increase vulnerability to environmental exposures, while urbanisation and increased consumption can amplify pressures on the environment and erode environmental quality.

These perspectives on the environment, health and well-being nexus aim to capture the dynamic relationships between our use of the environment as a resource, the pressures and resulting exposures that this generates, and resulting effects on human health and well-being. A key challenge in the field of environmental health is how to generate knowledge on these relationships that can inform the development of relevant policy responses.

In this article, we first consider how European Union (EU) policies reflect a more integrated understanding of the environment, health and well-being nexus. We go on to describe the most recent conceptual frameworks used to map these relationships, and identify relevant indicator frameworks. We conclude with some reflections on how frameworks on environment, health and well-being might inform future policy making.

Changing political perspectives

The focus of EU policies on environment and health has shifted from a compartmentalised approach towards a systemic approach that captures the interdependencies across environment, health and well-being challenges.

The Europe 2020 strategy (EC, 2010), the 7th Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) (EU, 2013) and the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe (EC, 2011) are the EU policy documents that set strategic objectives for the period up until 2020 and longer-term visions up until 2050.

The 7th EAP explicitly focuses on improving environmental quality in order to reap benefits for health and well-being, recognising the need to maintain the capacity of ecosystems to deliver key services essential to human society.

Europe 2020, the EU’s growth strategy for the period 2010 to 2020, presents a vision of a sustainable and inclusive economy, characterised by high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. It explicitly acknowledges the need to create synergies between economic and environmental goals, and argues for a transition towards a 'green economy'. The flagship initiative 'Resource Efficient Europe' contains elements relevant to environment and health, where 'by 2050 the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to a global economic transformation'.

The European Environment and Health Strategy (EC, 2003) took an integrated approach aiming to create synergies between health, environment and research policies. The 2004–2010 Environment and Health Action Plan (EC, 2004) aimed to implement the first cycle of the strategy and focused on the causal links between environmental risk factors and priority diseases.

Effective governance of the environment, human health and well-being reaches across a number of policy domains and must be grounded in an understanding of complex system interactions, feedback loops, and the trade-offs involved. With the aim of facilitating understanding of these systemic risks and interactions, new conceptual frameworks have been developed. The aim is to take an integrated approach to assessing the relationships between environmental factors and human health that can capture the broader spatial, socio-economic and cultural context.

Conceptual approaches

In the field of environmental health, recent efforts have focused on the development of frameworks that can depict the multiple variables at work within the environment, health and well-being nexus and illustrate the causal relationships between them. In particular, the aim has been to capture how drivers catalyse the transition of an environmental state, leading to an exposure that in turn generates a health outcome. The relationship is conceived as bi-directional, whereby high quality environments provide positive impacts on health and well-being. An additional aim is to acknowledge how an individual’s socio-economic context can determine the relationship between exposure and resulting health impacts.

In a parallel development, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) called for by UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan aimed to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and establish the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems. Work undertaken in this context by the MA Board (MA Board, 2005) recognised the need to place well-being in an ecosystem perspective. Their aim was to capture the dynamic relationships between the ecosystem services provided by natural capital and the key constituents of human well-being.

These insights then informed the development of a more recent conceptual model in this field, the Ecosystems Enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effect, Actions or eDPSEEA model (Reis et al 2013). The distal DPSEEA model presented in figure 1 below, is derived from the eDPSEEA model and depicts a spatially “distal” pathway from drivers to the pressures which disrupt ecosystem services and by extension human health and wellbeing.

The model recognises this distal pathway through which drivers can influence health and well-being in any location, in addition to the proximal (near in space and time) pathway which is normally considered in environmental public health.

The proximal pathway captures the traditional perspective whereby changes to the local physical environment impact on health and well-being, an example being the effects of contaminated drinking water on the local population.

The second, distal pathway, illustrated above shows how drivers caninfluence health and well-being through their impact on ecosystems services in remote locations. For example, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climatic system and resulting climatic disruption at the local level. An important recognition is that, irrespective of where ecosystem damage initially impacts, in a world intimately connected by social, economic and ecological systems, the effects on health and well-being may be felt anywhere, for example through migration or damage to food security.

This conceptual model is attractive since it integrates social complexity with ecological complexity in the relationship between environment, health and well-being over different scales, as well as capturing the positive concept of well-being.

Indicator frameworks

Conceptual frameworks are very useful tools for depicting relationships in systems, but if they are to aid our understanding of the current situation or possible future scenarios, then the relevant parts must be furnished with concrete evidence. Indicators provide a means of organising data on interactions in the system and tracking and communicating trends over space and time.

Traditional economic indicators such as GDP have been criticised for failing to capture important issues which affect human well-being, for example, the state of the environment and the sustainability of economic development. Substantial efforts have been made to develop indicators that address the wider social, health and environmental dimensions of well-being, including the OECD’s Better Life Initiative; the New Economics Foundation’s system of National Accounts of Well-being; the University of Waterloo’s Canadian Index of Well-Being; and Eurostat’s Quality of life indicators.

Theuse of natural resources to meet basic needs is also the subject of the Environmental Indicator Report on Natural Resources and Human Well-being in a Green Economy (EEA, 2013). The report takes basic needs as an entry point to resource use, illustrating the complex interdependence of Europe’s systems for meeting its food, water, energy and housing needs (see figure 2 below). The report proposes a suit of indicators that provide insight into resource use patterns and how they impact on the environment and ultimately on human well-being. Although the environmental pressures related to resource use are generally in decline, diverse impacts on human well-being persist due to time lags before improvements in the state of the environment manifest.

Figure 2: Key resource systems and human well-being

Tracking multifaceted impacts on health and well-being demands a diverse set of indicators. In developing an indicator base for environment, health and well-being, it is also important to include indicators that combine health, environment and socio-economic dimensions.

In figure 3 below, we take the example of climate change to demonstrate how conceptual mapping can help us to understand the complex relationships between ecosystems, natural, built and social environments, and human health. By identifying the pressures that impact on the state of the environment and determining human exposures and experiences, via both distal and proximal pathways, we can then start to build a portfolio of relevant policy actions.

Figure 3: Addressing the effects and actions of climate change through DPSEEA models

Source: The modelling approach used in this graphic is based on the eDPSEEA model derived from Reis et al. (2013) which shows both the proximal and distal (ecosystems related) pathways from anthropogenic drivers to health and wellbeing.

The mapping process enables us to identify indicators that can be used to monitor change at different points in the system, including drivers, pressures, states, exposures, effects and actions. Figure 4 below provides an overview of possible indicators on effects of climate change on the environment and human health, and identifies international data sources that can inform these indicators.

Figure 4: Selected indicators on the effects of climate change on the environment and human health

Looking Forward

Conceptual frameworks can provide tools to think with, allowing us to communicate and bridge gaps across scientific, professional and policy constituencies. The eDPSEEA-model described above permits the broader framing of environment, health and well-being, against which to assemble a diverse array of evidence in a meaningful structure that can provide insights for policy making.

In addition, the framework allows us to configure a set of assessment indicators which reflect the social and ecological complexity of environment, health and well-being and can be used to track the effectiveness of policy, the interactions between several policy measures and unintended health consequences of policies. A challenge remains in terms of the availability of data with which to furnish indicators in the environment, health and well-being nexus. Relevant data are in some cases available from international or national data sources, but spatial and temporal coverage is fragmented. The further development of an indicator system for environment, health and well-being should be coupled with improvements in the evidence base in order to effectively inform future policy initiatives.

EC, 2010, Communication from the Commission - Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020EC, 2011, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM/2011/571

EU, 2013, Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’, COD 2012/0337

]]>No publisherhealth effectshuman healthtransport2015/04/21 13:58:32 GMT+2FileCities in Transition (leaflet)https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/a-europe-to-thrive-in/cities-in-transition-leaflet/view
FRESH outputs are available here for download and include a brochure that presents the conceptual approach used to frame project work and summarises the main conclusions, as well as a narrative report on how challenges and opportunities for the elderly population living in cities.

In the article below, we review how our understanding of the complex links between the environment, human health and well-being has evolved in recent years, and reflect on how this is addressed in the current EU policy framework. Conceptual models are available that can help us to structure our thinking and map available evidence to explore this relationship, as well as indicators that focus on the social and environmental dimensions of health and well-being.

A complex challenge

The health and well-being of human societies is intrinsically linked to the quality of the environment in which they live. Over the past century, evidence of the links between toxic, infectious and physical stressors in air, water, soil and food and negative health outcomes for local communities has accumulated. This has driven the implementation of targeted policy actions to address the environmental determinants of health.

This compartmentalised and hazard focused approach continues to deliver significant benefits for health. However, it is inadequate when tackling the multiple stressors and systemic challenges we face today, such as climate change, resource depletion and biodiversity loss. At the same time, our understanding of the human condition has been expanding to capture well-being, as well as health. When considering well-being in relation to the physical environment, it is important to address health stressors, and foster the positive aspects that make for a healthy and stimulating environment.

Recent framing of environment, health and well-being captures multiple and cumulative exposures, upstream drivers and feedback systems over expanded temporal and spatial scales. Health and well-being outcomes are now understood to be embedded in a wider social context, including demographic shifts towards an aging population, urbanisation, lifestyle and consumption changes, and shifts in the global disease burden from communicable to non-communicable disease. For example, shifts in demography and disease burden can increase vulnerability to environmental exposures, while urbanisation and increased consumption can amplify pressures on the environment and erode environmental quality.

These perspectives on the environment, health and well-being nexus aim to capture the dynamic relationships between our use of the environment as a resource, the pressures and resulting exposures that this generates, and resulting effects on human health and well-being. A key challenge in the field of environmental health is how to generate knowledge on these relationships that can inform the development of relevant policy responses.

In this article, we first consider how European Union (EU) policies reflect a more integrated understanding of the environment, health and well-being nexus. We go on to describe the most recent conceptual frameworks used to map these relationships, and identify relevant indicator frameworks. We conclude with some reflections on how frameworks on environment, health and well-being might inform future policy making.

Changing political perspectives

The focus of EU policies on environment and health has shifted from a compartmentalised approach towards a systemic approach that captures the interdependencies across environment, health and well-being challenges.

The Europe 2020 strategy (EC, 2010), the 7th Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) (EU, 2013) and the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe (EC, 2011) are the EU policy documents that set strategic objectives for the period up until 2020 and longer-term visions up until 2050.

The 7th EAP explicitly focuses on improving environmental quality in order to reap benefits for health and well-being, recognising the need to maintain the capacity of ecosystems to deliver key services essential to human society.

Europe 2020, the EU’s growth strategy for the period 2010 to 2020, presents a vision of a sustainable and inclusive economy, characterised by high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. It explicitly acknowledges the need to create synergies between economic and environmental goals, and argues for a transition towards a 'green economy'. The flagship initiative 'Resource Efficient Europe' contains elements relevant to environment and health, where 'by 2050 the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to a global economic transformation'.

The European Environment and Health Strategy (EC, 2003) took an integrated approach aiming to create synergies between health, environment and research policies. The 2004–2010 Environment and Health Action Plan (EC, 2004) aimed to implement the first cycle of the strategy and focused on the causal links between environmental risk factors and priority diseases.

Effective governance of the environment, human health and well-being reaches across a number of policy domains and must be grounded in an understanding of complex system interactions, feedback loops, and the trade-offs involved. With the aim of facilitating understanding of these systemic risks and interactions, new conceptual frameworks have been developed. The aim is to take an integrated approach to assessing the relationships between environmental factors and human health that can capture the broader spatial, socio-economic and cultural context.

Conceptual approaches

In the field of environmental health, recent efforts have focused on the development of frameworks that can depict the multiple variables at work within the environment, health and well-being nexus and illustrate the causal relationships between them. In particular, the aim has been to capture how drivers catalyse the transition of an environmental state, leading to an exposure that in turn generates a health outcome. The relationship is conceived as bi-directional, whereby high quality environments provide positive impacts on health and well-being. An additional aim is to acknowledge how an individual’s socio-economic context can determine the relationship between exposure and resulting health impacts.

In a parallel development, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) called for by UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan aimed to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and establish the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems. Work undertaken in this context by the MA Board (MA Board, 2005) recognised the need to place well-being in an ecosystem perspective. Their aim was to capture the dynamic relationships between the ecosystem services provided by natural capital and the key constituents of human well-being.

These insights then informed the development of a more recent conceptual model in this field, the Ecosystems Enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effect, Actions or eDPSEEA model (Reis et al 2013). The distal DPSEEA model presented in figure 1 below, is derived from the eDPSEEA model and depicts a spatially “distal” pathway from drivers to the pressures which disrupt ecosystem services and by extension human health and wellbeing.

The model recognises this distal pathway through which drivers can influence health and well-being in any location, in addition to the proximal (near in space and time) pathway which is normally considered in environmental public health.

The proximal pathway captures the traditional perspective whereby changes to the local physical environment impact on health and well-being, an example being the effects of contaminated drinking water on the local population.

The second, distal pathway, illustrated above shows how drivers caninfluence health and well-being through their impact on ecosystems services in remote locations. For example, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climatic system and resulting climatic disruption at the local level. An important recognition is that, irrespective of where ecosystem damage initially impacts, in a world intimately connected by social, economic and ecological systems, the effects on health and well-being may be felt anywhere, for example through migration or damage to food security.

This conceptual model is attractive since it integrates social complexity with ecological complexity in the relationship between environment, health and well-being over different scales, as well as capturing the positive concept of well-being.

Indicator frameworks

Conceptual frameworks are very useful tools for depicting relationships in systems, but if they are to aid our understanding of the current situation or possible future scenarios, then the relevant parts must be furnished with concrete evidence. Indicators provide a means of organising data on interactions in the system and tracking and communicating trends over space and time.

Traditional economic indicators such as GDP have been criticised for failing to capture important issues which affect human well-being, for example, the state of the environment and the sustainability of economic development. Substantial efforts have been made to develop indicators that address the wider social, health and environmental dimensions of well-being, including the OECD’s Better Life Initiative; the New Economics Foundation’s system of National Accounts of Well-being; the University of Waterloo’s Canadian Index of Well-Being; and Eurostat’s Quality of life indicators.

Theuse of natural resources to meet basic needs is also the subject of the Environmental Indicator Report on Natural Resources and Human Well-being in a Green Economy (EEA, 2013). The report takes basic needs as an entry point to resource use, illustrating the complex interdependence of Europe’s systems for meeting its food, water, energy and housing needs (see figure 2 below). The report proposes a suit of indicators that provide insight into resource use patterns and how they impact on the environment and ultimately on human well-being. Although the environmental pressures related to resource use are generally in decline, diverse impacts on human well-being persist due to time lags before improvements in the state of the environment manifest.

Figure 2: Key resource systems and human well-being

Tracking multifaceted impacts on health and well-being demands a diverse set of indicators. In developing an indicator base for environment, health and well-being, it is also important to include indicators that combine health, environment and socio-economic dimensions.

In figure 3 below, we take the example of climate change to demonstrate how conceptual mapping can help us to understand the complex relationships between ecosystems, natural, built and social environments, and human health. By identifying the pressures that impact on the state of the environment and determining human exposures and experiences, via both distal and proximal pathways, we can then start to build a portfolio of relevant policy actions.

Figure 3: Addressing the effects and actions of climate change through DPSEEA models

Source: The modelling approach used in this graphic is based on the eDPSEEA model derived from Reis et al. (2013) which shows both the proximal and distal (ecosystems related) pathways from anthropogenic drivers to health and wellbeing.

The mapping process enables us to identify indicators that can be used to monitor change at different points in the system, including drivers, pressures, states, exposures, effects and actions. Figure 4 below provides an overview of possible indicators on effects of climate change on the environment and human health, and identifies international data sources that can inform these indicators.

Figure 4: Selected indicators on the effects of climate change on the environment and human health

Looking Forward

Conceptual frameworks can provide tools to think with, allowing us to communicate and bridge gaps across scientific, professional and policy constituencies. The eDPSEEA-model described above permits the broader framing of environment, health and well-being, against which to assemble a diverse array of evidence in a meaningful structure that can provide insights for policy making.

In addition, the framework allows us to configure a set of assessment indicators which reflect the social and ecological complexity of environment, health and well-being and can be used to track the effectiveness of policy, the interactions between several policy measures and unintended health consequences of policies. A challenge remains in terms of the availability of data with which to furnish indicators in the environment, health and well-being nexus. Relevant data are in some cases available from international or national data sources, but spatial and temporal coverage is fragmented. The further development of an indicator system for environment, health and well-being should be coupled with improvements in the evidence base in order to effectively inform future policy initiatives.

EC, 2010, Communication from the Commission - Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020EC, 2011, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM/2011/571

EU, 2013, Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’, COD 2012/0337

]]>No publisherhealth effectshuman healthtransitionscities2015/04/21 13:58:29 GMT+2FilePolicy (leaflet)https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/a-europe-to-thrive-in/policy-leaflet/view
FRESH outputs are available here for download and include a brochure that presents the conceptual approach used to frame project work and summarises the main conclusions, as well as a narrative report on how challenges and opportunities for the elderly population living in cities.

In the article below, we review how our understanding of the complex links between the environment, human health and well-being has evolved in recent years, and reflect on how this is addressed in the current EU policy framework. Conceptual models are available that can help us to structure our thinking and map available evidence to explore this relationship, as well as indicators that focus on the social and environmental dimensions of health and well-being.

A complex challenge

The health and well-being of human societies is intrinsically linked to the quality of the environment in which they live. Over the past century, evidence of the links between toxic, infectious and physical stressors in air, water, soil and food and negative health outcomes for local communities has accumulated. This has driven the implementation of targeted policy actions to address the environmental determinants of health.

This compartmentalised and hazard focused approach continues to deliver significant benefits for health. However, it is inadequate when tackling the multiple stressors and systemic challenges we face today, such as climate change, resource depletion and biodiversity loss. At the same time, our understanding of the human condition has been expanding to capture well-being, as well as health. When considering well-being in relation to the physical environment, it is important to address health stressors, and foster the positive aspects that make for a healthy and stimulating environment.

Recent framing of environment, health and well-being captures multiple and cumulative exposures, upstream drivers and feedback systems over expanded temporal and spatial scales. Health and well-being outcomes are now understood to be embedded in a wider social context, including demographic shifts towards an aging population, urbanisation, lifestyle and consumption changes, and shifts in the global disease burden from communicable to non-communicable disease. For example, shifts in demography and disease burden can increase vulnerability to environmental exposures, while urbanisation and increased consumption can amplify pressures on the environment and erode environmental quality.

These perspectives on the environment, health and well-being nexus aim to capture the dynamic relationships between our use of the environment as a resource, the pressures and resulting exposures that this generates, and resulting effects on human health and well-being. A key challenge in the field of environmental health is how to generate knowledge on these relationships that can inform the development of relevant policy responses.

In this article, we first consider how European Union (EU) policies reflect a more integrated understanding of the environment, health and well-being nexus. We go on to describe the most recent conceptual frameworks used to map these relationships, and identify relevant indicator frameworks. We conclude with some reflections on how frameworks on environment, health and well-being might inform future policy making.

Changing political perspectives

The focus of EU policies on environment and health has shifted from a compartmentalised approach towards a systemic approach that captures the interdependencies across environment, health and well-being challenges.

The Europe 2020 strategy (EC, 2010), the 7th Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) (EU, 2013) and the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe (EC, 2011) are the EU policy documents that set strategic objectives for the period up until 2020 and longer-term visions up until 2050.

The 7th EAP explicitly focuses on improving environmental quality in order to reap benefits for health and well-being, recognising the need to maintain the capacity of ecosystems to deliver key services essential to human society.

Europe 2020, the EU’s growth strategy for the period 2010 to 2020, presents a vision of a sustainable and inclusive economy, characterised by high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. It explicitly acknowledges the need to create synergies between economic and environmental goals, and argues for a transition towards a 'green economy'. The flagship initiative 'Resource Efficient Europe' contains elements relevant to environment and health, where 'by 2050 the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to a global economic transformation'.

The European Environment and Health Strategy (EC, 2003) took an integrated approach aiming to create synergies between health, environment and research policies. The 2004–2010 Environment and Health Action Plan (EC, 2004) aimed to implement the first cycle of the strategy and focused on the causal links between environmental risk factors and priority diseases.

Effective governance of the environment, human health and well-being reaches across a number of policy domains and must be grounded in an understanding of complex system interactions, feedback loops, and the trade-offs involved. With the aim of facilitating understanding of these systemic risks and interactions, new conceptual frameworks have been developed. The aim is to take an integrated approach to assessing the relationships between environmental factors and human health that can capture the broader spatial, socio-economic and cultural context.

Conceptual approaches

In the field of environmental health, recent efforts have focused on the development of frameworks that can depict the multiple variables at work within the environment, health and well-being nexus and illustrate the causal relationships between them. In particular, the aim has been to capture how drivers catalyse the transition of an environmental state, leading to an exposure that in turn generates a health outcome. The relationship is conceived as bi-directional, whereby high quality environments provide positive impacts on health and well-being. An additional aim is to acknowledge how an individual’s socio-economic context can determine the relationship between exposure and resulting health impacts.

In a parallel development, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) called for by UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan aimed to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and establish the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems. Work undertaken in this context by the MA Board (MA Board, 2005) recognised the need to place well-being in an ecosystem perspective. Their aim was to capture the dynamic relationships between the ecosystem services provided by natural capital and the key constituents of human well-being.

These insights then informed the development of a more recent conceptual model in this field, the Ecosystems Enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effect, Actions or eDPSEEA model (Reis et al 2013). The distal DPSEEA model presented in figure 1 below, is derived from the eDPSEEA model and depicts a spatially “distal” pathway from drivers to the pressures which disrupt ecosystem services and by extension human health and wellbeing.

The model recognises this distal pathway through which drivers can influence health and well-being in any location, in addition to the proximal (near in space and time) pathway which is normally considered in environmental public health.

The proximal pathway captures the traditional perspective whereby changes to the local physical environment impact on health and well-being, an example being the effects of contaminated drinking water on the local population.

The second, distal pathway, illustrated above shows how drivers caninfluence health and well-being through their impact on ecosystems services in remote locations. For example, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climatic system and resulting climatic disruption at the local level. An important recognition is that, irrespective of where ecosystem damage initially impacts, in a world intimately connected by social, economic and ecological systems, the effects on health and well-being may be felt anywhere, for example through migration or damage to food security.

This conceptual model is attractive since it integrates social complexity with ecological complexity in the relationship between environment, health and well-being over different scales, as well as capturing the positive concept of well-being.

Indicator frameworks

Conceptual frameworks are very useful tools for depicting relationships in systems, but if they are to aid our understanding of the current situation or possible future scenarios, then the relevant parts must be furnished with concrete evidence. Indicators provide a means of organising data on interactions in the system and tracking and communicating trends over space and time.

Traditional economic indicators such as GDP have been criticised for failing to capture important issues which affect human well-being, for example, the state of the environment and the sustainability of economic development. Substantial efforts have been made to develop indicators that address the wider social, health and environmental dimensions of well-being, including the OECD’s Better Life Initiative; the New Economics Foundation’s system of National Accounts of Well-being; the University of Waterloo’s Canadian Index of Well-Being; and Eurostat’s Quality of life indicators.

Theuse of natural resources to meet basic needs is also the subject of the Environmental Indicator Report on Natural Resources and Human Well-being in a Green Economy (EEA, 2013). The report takes basic needs as an entry point to resource use, illustrating the complex interdependence of Europe’s systems for meeting its food, water, energy and housing needs (see figure 2 below). The report proposes a suit of indicators that provide insight into resource use patterns and how they impact on the environment and ultimately on human well-being. Although the environmental pressures related to resource use are generally in decline, diverse impacts on human well-being persist due to time lags before improvements in the state of the environment manifest.

Figure 2: Key resource systems and human well-being

Tracking multifaceted impacts on health and well-being demands a diverse set of indicators. In developing an indicator base for environment, health and well-being, it is also important to include indicators that combine health, environment and socio-economic dimensions.

In figure 3 below, we take the example of climate change to demonstrate how conceptual mapping can help us to understand the complex relationships between ecosystems, natural, built and social environments, and human health. By identifying the pressures that impact on the state of the environment and determining human exposures and experiences, via both distal and proximal pathways, we can then start to build a portfolio of relevant policy actions.

Figure 3: Addressing the effects and actions of climate change through DPSEEA models

Source: The modelling approach used in this graphic is based on the eDPSEEA model derived from Reis et al. (2013) which shows both the proximal and distal (ecosystems related) pathways from anthropogenic drivers to health and wellbeing.

The mapping process enables us to identify indicators that can be used to monitor change at different points in the system, including drivers, pressures, states, exposures, effects and actions. Figure 4 below provides an overview of possible indicators on effects of climate change on the environment and human health, and identifies international data sources that can inform these indicators.

Figure 4: Selected indicators on the effects of climate change on the environment and human health

Looking Forward

Conceptual frameworks can provide tools to think with, allowing us to communicate and bridge gaps across scientific, professional and policy constituencies. The eDPSEEA-model described above permits the broader framing of environment, health and well-being, against which to assemble a diverse array of evidence in a meaningful structure that can provide insights for policy making.

In addition, the framework allows us to configure a set of assessment indicators which reflect the social and ecological complexity of environment, health and well-being and can be used to track the effectiveness of policy, the interactions between several policy measures and unintended health consequences of policies. A challenge remains in terms of the availability of data with which to furnish indicators in the environment, health and well-being nexus. Relevant data are in some cases available from international or national data sources, but spatial and temporal coverage is fragmented. The further development of an indicator system for environment, health and well-being should be coupled with improvements in the evidence base in order to effectively inform future policy initiatives.

EC, 2010, Communication from the Commission - Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020EC, 2011, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM/2011/571

EU, 2013, Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’, COD 2012/0337

]]>No publisherhuman healtheu policy2015/04/21 13:58:32 GMT+2FileClimate change (leaflet)https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/a-europe-to-thrive-in/climate-change-leaflet/view
FRESH outputs are available here for download and include a brochure that presents the conceptual approach used to frame project work and summarises the main conclusions, as well as a narrative report on how challenges and opportunities for the elderly population living in cities.

In the article below, we review how our understanding of the complex links between the environment, human health and well-being has evolved in recent years, and reflect on how this is addressed in the current EU policy framework. Conceptual models are available that can help us to structure our thinking and map available evidence to explore this relationship, as well as indicators that focus on the social and environmental dimensions of health and well-being.

A complex challenge

The health and well-being of human societies is intrinsically linked to the quality of the environment in which they live. Over the past century, evidence of the links between toxic, infectious and physical stressors in air, water, soil and food and negative health outcomes for local communities has accumulated. This has driven the implementation of targeted policy actions to address the environmental determinants of health.

This compartmentalised and hazard focused approach continues to deliver significant benefits for health. However, it is inadequate when tackling the multiple stressors and systemic challenges we face today, such as climate change, resource depletion and biodiversity loss. At the same time, our understanding of the human condition has been expanding to capture well-being, as well as health. When considering well-being in relation to the physical environment, it is important to address health stressors, and foster the positive aspects that make for a healthy and stimulating environment.

Recent framing of environment, health and well-being captures multiple and cumulative exposures, upstream drivers and feedback systems over expanded temporal and spatial scales. Health and well-being outcomes are now understood to be embedded in a wider social context, including demographic shifts towards an aging population, urbanisation, lifestyle and consumption changes, and shifts in the global disease burden from communicable to non-communicable disease. For example, shifts in demography and disease burden can increase vulnerability to environmental exposures, while urbanisation and increased consumption can amplify pressures on the environment and erode environmental quality.

These perspectives on the environment, health and well-being nexus aim to capture the dynamic relationships between our use of the environment as a resource, the pressures and resulting exposures that this generates, and resulting effects on human health and well-being. A key challenge in the field of environmental health is how to generate knowledge on these relationships that can inform the development of relevant policy responses.

In this article, we first consider how European Union (EU) policies reflect a more integrated understanding of the environment, health and well-being nexus. We go on to describe the most recent conceptual frameworks used to map these relationships, and identify relevant indicator frameworks. We conclude with some reflections on how frameworks on environment, health and well-being might inform future policy making.

Changing political perspectives

The focus of EU policies on environment and health has shifted from a compartmentalised approach towards a systemic approach that captures the interdependencies across environment, health and well-being challenges.

The Europe 2020 strategy (EC, 2010), the 7th Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) (EU, 2013) and the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe (EC, 2011) are the EU policy documents that set strategic objectives for the period up until 2020 and longer-term visions up until 2050.

The 7th EAP explicitly focuses on improving environmental quality in order to reap benefits for health and well-being, recognising the need to maintain the capacity of ecosystems to deliver key services essential to human society.

Europe 2020, the EU’s growth strategy for the period 2010 to 2020, presents a vision of a sustainable and inclusive economy, characterised by high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. It explicitly acknowledges the need to create synergies between economic and environmental goals, and argues for a transition towards a 'green economy'. The flagship initiative 'Resource Efficient Europe' contains elements relevant to environment and health, where 'by 2050 the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to a global economic transformation'.

The European Environment and Health Strategy (EC, 2003) took an integrated approach aiming to create synergies between health, environment and research policies. The 2004–2010 Environment and Health Action Plan (EC, 2004) aimed to implement the first cycle of the strategy and focused on the causal links between environmental risk factors and priority diseases.

Effective governance of the environment, human health and well-being reaches across a number of policy domains and must be grounded in an understanding of complex system interactions, feedback loops, and the trade-offs involved. With the aim of facilitating understanding of these systemic risks and interactions, new conceptual frameworks have been developed. The aim is to take an integrated approach to assessing the relationships between environmental factors and human health that can capture the broader spatial, socio-economic and cultural context.

Conceptual approaches

In the field of environmental health, recent efforts have focused on the development of frameworks that can depict the multiple variables at work within the environment, health and well-being nexus and illustrate the causal relationships between them. In particular, the aim has been to capture how drivers catalyse the transition of an environmental state, leading to an exposure that in turn generates a health outcome. The relationship is conceived as bi-directional, whereby high quality environments provide positive impacts on health and well-being. An additional aim is to acknowledge how an individual’s socio-economic context can determine the relationship between exposure and resulting health impacts.

In a parallel development, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) called for by UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan aimed to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and establish the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems. Work undertaken in this context by the MA Board (MA Board, 2005) recognised the need to place well-being in an ecosystem perspective. Their aim was to capture the dynamic relationships between the ecosystem services provided by natural capital and the key constituents of human well-being.

These insights then informed the development of a more recent conceptual model in this field, the Ecosystems Enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effect, Actions or eDPSEEA model (Reis et al 2013). The distal DPSEEA model presented in figure 1 below, is derived from the eDPSEEA model and depicts a spatially “distal” pathway from drivers to the pressures which disrupt ecosystem services and by extension human health and wellbeing.

The model recognises this distal pathway through which drivers can influence health and well-being in any location, in addition to the proximal (near in space and time) pathway which is normally considered in environmental public health.

The proximal pathway captures the traditional perspective whereby changes to the local physical environment impact on health and well-being, an example being the effects of contaminated drinking water on the local population.

The second, distal pathway, illustrated above shows how drivers caninfluence health and well-being through their impact on ecosystems services in remote locations. For example, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climatic system and resulting climatic disruption at the local level. An important recognition is that, irrespective of where ecosystem damage initially impacts, in a world intimately connected by social, economic and ecological systems, the effects on health and well-being may be felt anywhere, for example through migration or damage to food security.

This conceptual model is attractive since it integrates social complexity with ecological complexity in the relationship between environment, health and well-being over different scales, as well as capturing the positive concept of well-being.

Indicator frameworks

Conceptual frameworks are very useful tools for depicting relationships in systems, but if they are to aid our understanding of the current situation or possible future scenarios, then the relevant parts must be furnished with concrete evidence. Indicators provide a means of organising data on interactions in the system and tracking and communicating trends over space and time.

Traditional economic indicators such as GDP have been criticised for failing to capture important issues which affect human well-being, for example, the state of the environment and the sustainability of economic development. Substantial efforts have been made to develop indicators that address the wider social, health and environmental dimensions of well-being, including the OECD’s Better Life Initiative; the New Economics Foundation’s system of National Accounts of Well-being; the University of Waterloo’s Canadian Index of Well-Being; and Eurostat’s Quality of life indicators.

Theuse of natural resources to meet basic needs is also the subject of the Environmental Indicator Report on Natural Resources and Human Well-being in a Green Economy (EEA, 2013). The report takes basic needs as an entry point to resource use, illustrating the complex interdependence of Europe’s systems for meeting its food, water, energy and housing needs (see figure 2 below). The report proposes a suit of indicators that provide insight into resource use patterns and how they impact on the environment and ultimately on human well-being. Although the environmental pressures related to resource use are generally in decline, diverse impacts on human well-being persist due to time lags before improvements in the state of the environment manifest.

Figure 2: Key resource systems and human well-being

Tracking multifaceted impacts on health and well-being demands a diverse set of indicators. In developing an indicator base for environment, health and well-being, it is also important to include indicators that combine health, environment and socio-economic dimensions.

In figure 3 below, we take the example of climate change to demonstrate how conceptual mapping can help us to understand the complex relationships between ecosystems, natural, built and social environments, and human health. By identifying the pressures that impact on the state of the environment and determining human exposures and experiences, via both distal and proximal pathways, we can then start to build a portfolio of relevant policy actions.

Figure 3: Addressing the effects and actions of climate change through DPSEEA models

Source: The modelling approach used in this graphic is based on the eDPSEEA model derived from Reis et al. (2013) which shows both the proximal and distal (ecosystems related) pathways from anthropogenic drivers to health and wellbeing.

The mapping process enables us to identify indicators that can be used to monitor change at different points in the system, including drivers, pressures, states, exposures, effects and actions. Figure 4 below provides an overview of possible indicators on effects of climate change on the environment and human health, and identifies international data sources that can inform these indicators.

Figure 4: Selected indicators on the effects of climate change on the environment and human health

Looking Forward

Conceptual frameworks can provide tools to think with, allowing us to communicate and bridge gaps across scientific, professional and policy constituencies. The eDPSEEA-model described above permits the broader framing of environment, health and well-being, against which to assemble a diverse array of evidence in a meaningful structure that can provide insights for policy making.

In addition, the framework allows us to configure a set of assessment indicators which reflect the social and ecological complexity of environment, health and well-being and can be used to track the effectiveness of policy, the interactions between several policy measures and unintended health consequences of policies. A challenge remains in terms of the availability of data with which to furnish indicators in the environment, health and well-being nexus. Relevant data are in some cases available from international or national data sources, but spatial and temporal coverage is fragmented. The further development of an indicator system for environment, health and well-being should be coupled with improvements in the evidence base in order to effectively inform future policy initiatives.

EC, 2010, Communication from the Commission - Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020EC, 2011, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM/2011/571

EU, 2013, Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’, COD 2012/0337

]]>No publisherhealth effectshuman healthclimate change and health2015/04/21 13:58:30 GMT+2FileChemicals in humans (leaflet)https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/a-europe-to-thrive-in/chemicals-in-humans-leaflet/view
FRESH outputs are available here for download and include a brochure that presents the conceptual approach used to frame project work and summarises the main conclusions, as well as a narrative report on how challenges and opportunities for the elderly population living in cities.

In the article below, we review how our understanding of the complex links between the environment, human health and well-being has evolved in recent years, and reflect on how this is addressed in the current EU policy framework. Conceptual models are available that can help us to structure our thinking and map available evidence to explore this relationship, as well as indicators that focus on the social and environmental dimensions of health and well-being.

A complex challenge

The health and well-being of human societies is intrinsically linked to the quality of the environment in which they live. Over the past century, evidence of the links between toxic, infectious and physical stressors in air, water, soil and food and negative health outcomes for local communities has accumulated. This has driven the implementation of targeted policy actions to address the environmental determinants of health.

This compartmentalised and hazard focused approach continues to deliver significant benefits for health. However, it is inadequate when tackling the multiple stressors and systemic challenges we face today, such as climate change, resource depletion and biodiversity loss. At the same time, our understanding of the human condition has been expanding to capture well-being, as well as health. When considering well-being in relation to the physical environment, it is important to address health stressors, and foster the positive aspects that make for a healthy and stimulating environment.

Recent framing of environment, health and well-being captures multiple and cumulative exposures, upstream drivers and feedback systems over expanded temporal and spatial scales. Health and well-being outcomes are now understood to be embedded in a wider social context, including demographic shifts towards an aging population, urbanisation, lifestyle and consumption changes, and shifts in the global disease burden from communicable to non-communicable disease. For example, shifts in demography and disease burden can increase vulnerability to environmental exposures, while urbanisation and increased consumption can amplify pressures on the environment and erode environmental quality.

These perspectives on the environment, health and well-being nexus aim to capture the dynamic relationships between our use of the environment as a resource, the pressures and resulting exposures that this generates, and resulting effects on human health and well-being. A key challenge in the field of environmental health is how to generate knowledge on these relationships that can inform the development of relevant policy responses.

In this article, we first consider how European Union (EU) policies reflect a more integrated understanding of the environment, health and well-being nexus. We go on to describe the most recent conceptual frameworks used to map these relationships, and identify relevant indicator frameworks. We conclude with some reflections on how frameworks on environment, health and well-being might inform future policy making.

Changing political perspectives

The focus of EU policies on environment and health has shifted from a compartmentalised approach towards a systemic approach that captures the interdependencies across environment, health and well-being challenges.

The Europe 2020 strategy (EC, 2010), the 7th Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) (EU, 2013) and the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe (EC, 2011) are the EU policy documents that set strategic objectives for the period up until 2020 and longer-term visions up until 2050.

The 7th EAP explicitly focuses on improving environmental quality in order to reap benefits for health and well-being, recognising the need to maintain the capacity of ecosystems to deliver key services essential to human society.

Europe 2020, the EU’s growth strategy for the period 2010 to 2020, presents a vision of a sustainable and inclusive economy, characterised by high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. It explicitly acknowledges the need to create synergies between economic and environmental goals, and argues for a transition towards a 'green economy'. The flagship initiative 'Resource Efficient Europe' contains elements relevant to environment and health, where 'by 2050 the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to a global economic transformation'.

The European Environment and Health Strategy (EC, 2003) took an integrated approach aiming to create synergies between health, environment and research policies. The 2004–2010 Environment and Health Action Plan (EC, 2004) aimed to implement the first cycle of the strategy and focused on the causal links between environmental risk factors and priority diseases.

Effective governance of the environment, human health and well-being reaches across a number of policy domains and must be grounded in an understanding of complex system interactions, feedback loops, and the trade-offs involved. With the aim of facilitating understanding of these systemic risks and interactions, new conceptual frameworks have been developed. The aim is to take an integrated approach to assessing the relationships between environmental factors and human health that can capture the broader spatial, socio-economic and cultural context.

Conceptual approaches

In the field of environmental health, recent efforts have focused on the development of frameworks that can depict the multiple variables at work within the environment, health and well-being nexus and illustrate the causal relationships between them. In particular, the aim has been to capture how drivers catalyse the transition of an environmental state, leading to an exposure that in turn generates a health outcome. The relationship is conceived as bi-directional, whereby high quality environments provide positive impacts on health and well-being. An additional aim is to acknowledge how an individual’s socio-economic context can determine the relationship between exposure and resulting health impacts.

In a parallel development, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) called for by UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan aimed to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and establish the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems. Work undertaken in this context by the MA Board (MA Board, 2005) recognised the need to place well-being in an ecosystem perspective. Their aim was to capture the dynamic relationships between the ecosystem services provided by natural capital and the key constituents of human well-being.

These insights then informed the development of a more recent conceptual model in this field, the Ecosystems Enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effect, Actions or eDPSEEA model (Reis et al 2013). The distal DPSEEA model presented in figure 1 below, is derived from the eDPSEEA model and depicts a spatially “distal” pathway from drivers to the pressures which disrupt ecosystem services and by extension human health and wellbeing.

The model recognises this distal pathway through which drivers can influence health and well-being in any location, in addition to the proximal (near in space and time) pathway which is normally considered in environmental public health.

The proximal pathway captures the traditional perspective whereby changes to the local physical environment impact on health and well-being, an example being the effects of contaminated drinking water on the local population.

The second, distal pathway, illustrated above shows how drivers caninfluence health and well-being through their impact on ecosystems services in remote locations. For example, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climatic system and resulting climatic disruption at the local level. An important recognition is that, irrespective of where ecosystem damage initially impacts, in a world intimately connected by social, economic and ecological systems, the effects on health and well-being may be felt anywhere, for example through migration or damage to food security.

This conceptual model is attractive since it integrates social complexity with ecological complexity in the relationship between environment, health and well-being over different scales, as well as capturing the positive concept of well-being.

Indicator frameworks

Conceptual frameworks are very useful tools for depicting relationships in systems, but if they are to aid our understanding of the current situation or possible future scenarios, then the relevant parts must be furnished with concrete evidence. Indicators provide a means of organising data on interactions in the system and tracking and communicating trends over space and time.

Traditional economic indicators such as GDP have been criticised for failing to capture important issues which affect human well-being, for example, the state of the environment and the sustainability of economic development. Substantial efforts have been made to develop indicators that address the wider social, health and environmental dimensions of well-being, including the OECD’s Better Life Initiative; the New Economics Foundation’s system of National Accounts of Well-being; the University of Waterloo’s Canadian Index of Well-Being; and Eurostat’s Quality of life indicators.

Theuse of natural resources to meet basic needs is also the subject of the Environmental Indicator Report on Natural Resources and Human Well-being in a Green Economy (EEA, 2013). The report takes basic needs as an entry point to resource use, illustrating the complex interdependence of Europe’s systems for meeting its food, water, energy and housing needs (see figure 2 below). The report proposes a suit of indicators that provide insight into resource use patterns and how they impact on the environment and ultimately on human well-being. Although the environmental pressures related to resource use are generally in decline, diverse impacts on human well-being persist due to time lags before improvements in the state of the environment manifest.

Figure 2: Key resource systems and human well-being

Tracking multifaceted impacts on health and well-being demands a diverse set of indicators. In developing an indicator base for environment, health and well-being, it is also important to include indicators that combine health, environment and socio-economic dimensions.

In figure 3 below, we take the example of climate change to demonstrate how conceptual mapping can help us to understand the complex relationships between ecosystems, natural, built and social environments, and human health. By identifying the pressures that impact on the state of the environment and determining human exposures and experiences, via both distal and proximal pathways, we can then start to build a portfolio of relevant policy actions.

Figure 3: Addressing the effects and actions of climate change through DPSEEA models

Source: The modelling approach used in this graphic is based on the eDPSEEA model derived from Reis et al. (2013) which shows both the proximal and distal (ecosystems related) pathways from anthropogenic drivers to health and wellbeing.

The mapping process enables us to identify indicators that can be used to monitor change at different points in the system, including drivers, pressures, states, exposures, effects and actions. Figure 4 below provides an overview of possible indicators on effects of climate change on the environment and human health, and identifies international data sources that can inform these indicators.

Figure 4: Selected indicators on the effects of climate change on the environment and human health

Looking Forward

Conceptual frameworks can provide tools to think with, allowing us to communicate and bridge gaps across scientific, professional and policy constituencies. The eDPSEEA-model described above permits the broader framing of environment, health and well-being, against which to assemble a diverse array of evidence in a meaningful structure that can provide insights for policy making.

In addition, the framework allows us to configure a set of assessment indicators which reflect the social and ecological complexity of environment, health and well-being and can be used to track the effectiveness of policy, the interactions between several policy measures and unintended health consequences of policies. A challenge remains in terms of the availability of data with which to furnish indicators in the environment, health and well-being nexus. Relevant data are in some cases available from international or national data sources, but spatial and temporal coverage is fragmented. The further development of an indicator system for environment, health and well-being should be coupled with improvements in the evidence base in order to effectively inform future policy initiatives.

EC, 2010, Communication from the Commission - Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020EC, 2011, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM/2011/571

EU, 2013, Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’, COD 2012/0337

Environmental health risks include particulate matter; ozone; indoor air pollution; unsafe water and sanitation; contamination from waste, including from research activities; exposure to chemicals, lead, mercury and other heavy metals;[3][5] and noise. Overall, 24 % of the global burden of disease and 23 % of premature deaths are attributable to environmental causes.[6] Urban air pollution, especially ambient particulate matter and ozone, are set to become the main environmentalcause of mortality worldwide by 2050.[7][8] The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecasts that the number of premature deaths from exposure to particulate matter in urban areas could more than double to 3.6 billion in 2050, most in China and India. Premature deaths from indoor air pollution, however, are likely to fall in coming years.[6] Ozone has a marked effect on human health (Figure 1) and is the most damaging air pollutant to vegetation, including crops.

Although economicgrowth and improved social conditions have reduced poverty, improved nutrition and widened access to safe drinking water, basic sanitation and education, they have encouraged unhealthy lifestyles in the developed world and increasingly among the developing world’s rapidly growing middle class. As a result, non-communicable disease (NCD) and medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease, cancers, diabetes, mental disorders and obesity, now outweigh communicable ones.[9]

By 2011, global average life expectancy reached 70 in 2011[12][13] and is expected to rise to 75 by 2045–2050 (GMT 1).[10]Older people, however, are more vulnerable to environmental hazards, spend more years living with injury and illness[11] and are susceptible to conditions of ageing, notably dementia.

Economic inequality,poverty and food insecurity continue to affect health outcomes and shorten lives within and across countries. Today 1.2 billion people still live in extreme poverty while in 2011–2013, 842 million peoples did not get enough food to live active lives.[14][15]

Rapid technological development creates both benefits and risks. Health services have and will benefit from bio-, nano- and information technologies (GMT 4), but their novelty means that the effects of their application on human and ecosystem health are little understood. Their wastes and emissions are of particular concern – for example, while the individual effects of the increasing number of chemicals, including pesticides, are relatively well-known, their impacts in combination remain largely unknown.[4]

Figure 1: World premature deaths due to urban pollution from particulate matter and ground-level ozone (2000–2050)[7]

Growing antibiotic resistance, partly due to evolution though overuse and over prescription, and the widespread use of antibiotics in intensive animal rearing are also culpable, is increasingly of concern, but research is lagging.[4][16] Concerns exist over the profitability of developing narrow-, rather than broad-spectrum drugs, and of a rich-country bias preventing medical spending that benefits the developing world.

Trends

Non-communicable disease. In 2008, NCDs accounted for 36 million premature deaths, and are likely to cause 55 million by 2030.[18] Long predominant in developed countries, NCDs became the leading disease burden in developing countries in 2010 (Figure 3). Cardiovascular disease and cancers are the biggest cause of mortality worldwide[19] and diabetes, to which the socially disadvantaged are most vulnerable, is projected to affect 471 million by 2035.[20] Senile dementia currently affects 44 million people and is projected to rise to 135 million worldwide by 2050, with 96 million of them in developing countries.[21]

Lifestyle NCDs are increasing but are preventable – tobacco accounts for almost 6 million premature deaths a year, projected to rise to 8 million by 2030; around 3.2 million annually are attributable to insufficient physical activity and about 1.7 million to low fruit and vegetable consumption.[22]

Currently 10 % of the world’s adults are obese, and, in 2012, more than 40 million children under the age of 5 were either overweight or obese. In developing countries with emerging economies, particularly in urban areas, the rate of increase in these problems is 30 % higher than in developed ones.[23]

Communicable disease. In spite of the ongoing decline of communicable diseases (Figure 2), they still pose a significant threat to human health and international health security, especially in developing countries.[26] Even in developed countries, communicable diseases have not been completely eradicated, and in some cases their incidence is growing, mainly due to the emergence of drug-resistant disease strains. For example, tuberculosis has re-emerged in some developed countries where it had historically been reduced to very low levels.[27] In 2012, 8.6 million people globally were living with tuberculosis, and 1.3 million people died from it. In the same year, there were 35.3 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, and 1.7 million people died of AIDS-related illnesses, including 230 000 children. Due to better access to therapy, the number of new HIV infections and deaths due to AIDS is decreasing globally, while the number of people living with HIV/AIDS is increasing.[28]

HIV/AIDS has received much attention in the developing world, but many developing countries face ‘neglected tropical diseases’, a group of parasitic and bacterial diseases such as dengue and leprosy. Vaccination programmes and other health responses for these diseases do exist, but they are often poorly and inadequately administered. Additionally, several contagious diseases persist despite the availability of an effective vaccine for over 50 years. One example is measles, a highly contagious disease that remains one of the leading causes of death among young children, particularly in developing countries.

Figure 2: The change in the global burden of disease and share of non-communicable diseases by world regions (1990–2030)[24][25]

Source: IHME Global health data exchange database (left panel); WHO Global health estimates - [c] and [d] (right panel)Note: DALY refers to Disability Adjusted Life Years, defined by WHO as “the sum of Years of potential life lost due to premature mortality and the years of productive life lost due to disability”.

Pandemics. Some infections have the potential to cause pandemics – made more likely by high levels of international travel and migration;[29] the ability of some viruses to mutate rapidly and jump from animals to humans; and antibiotic resistance.[30] The World Health Organization (WHO) warns that the world is 'ill-prepared to respond to severe pandemics … threatening public health emergency'.[31]

Health inequalities. Although life expectancy and health have improved globally over the last decades, significant differences still exist between and within countries, urban and rural areas, and different income-level groups. Indeed, about 75 % of all premature deaths in 2010 occurred in developing countries.[4]

Health care services also vary: there are 33 physicians per 10 000 people in Europe, 5.5 in southeast Asia and 2.5 in Africa. The high cost of medical care is another cause for concern – WHO suggests that around 150 million people face financial ruin each year from having to pay for medical services.[32]

Implications

Changes in disease burden could strain health systems and costs, deepen inequalities and increase poverty. If current demographic, urbanisation and health trends continue (GMTs 1, 2) developing countries will have to deal with a multiple burden of NCDs, communicable disease and pandemics, especially in slums of burgeoning urban areas.[33]

The finances of developing countries may be threatened by NCDs – in countries in all income groups, productivity losses from NCDs are already greater than public health spending. In 2013, WHO warned that business-as-usual will increase productivity losses and health care costs everywhere, with the cost of inaction far outweighing that of taking action.[7][33]

In developed countries, costs related to ageing populations and health could increase fiscal pressure and affect social cohesion and well-being (GMT 1).[34]

An integrated approach to health encompassing health inequalities, social, economic and environmental factors is key. Both WHO[33] and the United Nation Development Programme[35] agree that improving human development requires increased investment in health as well as infrastructure, education, and governance.

With more than 70 % of people projected to live in cities by 2050, good governance in urban areas will benefit both the environment and public health.[3] In rural areas, the interactions of wildlife, domesticated animals and human health pose growing risks of disease, which should be tackled by addressing the connections between them and ecosystem health.[36]

European countries improved public health in recent decades, and have relatively strong social safety nets and public healthcare systems. Nonetheless, significant health inequalities remain within and across countries – and have increased since 2006[37], with poor families disproportionally affected by the recent economic crises.[4] In Europe, including Russia, NCDs cause 86 % of premature deaths,[38] with ambient air and noise pollution and antibiotic resistance of particular concern.[3][39]

The health impacts of climate change are of particular concern for the elderly and vulnerable[40] while rising temperatures are also likely to bring new vector-borne diseases.[4] These factors, coupled with the increasing cost of long-term care and the decline in informal care for the elderly, threaten the affordability of technical advances, unless the EU addresses the underlying causes of ill health, including the influence of an ageing population, globalisation and environmental degradation.[4][36][41]

Understanding of the links between the environment and human health has evolved from perceiving them as isolated issues towards recognising the interdependencies between complex systems. Large-scale challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss can have potentially wide-ranging, long-term, and irreversible effects on human health and well-being. Such challenges call for an approach that takes account of the linkages between human and animal health, environmental drivers, and the socio-ecological context of disease emergence.[1][2][3]

Europe's long-term policy increasingly adopts a more systemic perspective that links the environment, human health and well-being. The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, for example, includes targets on natural resources that provide for basic human needs.[4] Promoting good health and reducing inequalities is also an integral part of the EU's Europe 2020 growth strategy.[5][6][7]

One of the three thematic priority objectives set out in the EU's 7th Environment Action Programme is 'to safeguard citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and well-being'.[8] At the global level, the World Health Organization (WHO) and related United Nations (UN) processes address a range of environmental and climate-related challenges to health and well-being.[9][10][11][12][13]

Trends

Knowledge gaps, uncertainties and shortages of data limit understanding of the complex interactions between human health, multiple environmental pressures, and social and demographic factors. This section focuses on some specific themes for which the EEA gathers information and has an assessment role, including air pollution, noise, and water quality. It concludes with a brief discussion of more systemic issues.

Air pollution

Air pollution remains a major environmental health risk in Europe, contributing to the burden of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, and other health effects.[14][15]16] Despite improvements with respect to some pollutants, exposures to particulate matter, ozone and carcinogenic benzo(a)pyrene are of high concern. This is particularly evident using the estimates based on WHO air quality guidelines,[15] which are more stringent than EU air quality standards[17] (Figure 1).

Noise

Environmental noise is a source of annoyance and has been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular diseases.[24][25] It is estimated that at least 125 million people in Europe were exposed to high levels of road traffic noise in 2011. And exposure to environmental noise has been estimated to contribute around 10 000 cases of premature deaths due to coronary heart disease and stroke each year, with almost 90% of the noise-related health impacts being associated with road traffic noise.[26]

Further efforts are needed to assess the health impacts of exposure to multiple chemicals from different sources, especially in vulnerable groups such as children. Current activities to streamline existing information on chemicals in the environment, including human biomonitoring data, should improve the knowledge base.[32]

Figure 3: Emission trends of heavy metals

Systemic issues

There is a growing recognition that major public health issues, such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancer, and obesity, result from the interplay of multiple factors, including environmental pressures.[1][33][34][35] The European population's vulnerability and ability to adapt to environmental pressures depends on a variety of long-term trends.

For example, the population age structure shapes vulnerability to health risks. Although EU-28 average life expectancy at birth exceeds 80 years, the expected years lived without disability are below 62 years for both men and women.[36] The proportion of people aged 65 and over (EU-27) is projected to increase from 18% in 2011 to 30% by 2060,[37][38] further shifting disease burdens and increasing the contribution of disabilities.[39]

Health and well-being impacts of climate change are related mainly to extreme weather events and changes in the distribution of climate-sensitive diseases. Some regions and population groups in Europe are particularly vulnerable to these threats.[43][44] A very likely increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, particularly in southern Europe, is projected to increase heat-related deaths unless adaptation measures are implemented.[44][45] Heavy precipitation and flooding can have profound effects on mental health and welfare.[46] Anticipated climate change impacts on some diseases, including those transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks, highlight the need to improve response mechanisms.[47][48][49]

Human health and well‑being ultimately depend on well‑functioning ecosystems and the way we use natural resources.[9] The synergies and trade-offs resulting from close interdependencies between the core resources, such as food, water, energy and other materials indirectly affect human health and well‑being, often through impacts on the environment.[51] In addition, the role of large-scale ecological and societal transitions for population health and well-being is increasingly recognised, influencing both health effects and the possibilities for public interventions to achieve a more sustainable society.[52]

]]>No publisherhealth effectshealth impactshuman healthwell-beingpollutionsocio-economy2015/02/18 01:00:00 GMT+2BriefingOzone - 8 hour mean target value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/ozone-8-hour-mean-target-value-for-the-protection-of-human-health
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set a target value and a long term objective value for ozone (O3) for the protection of human health. Target value: the maximum daily eight-hour mean may not exceed 120 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) on more than 25 days per calendar year averaged over three years. Long term objective value: the maximum daily eight-hour mean may not exceed 120 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) within a calendar year.No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).ozonehuman healthair qualityair pollution2014/08/22 15:29:45 GMT+2FigureParticulate matter (PM10) - Annual limit value for the protection of human health https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/particulate-matter-pm10-annual-limit-value-for-the-protection-of-human-health-7
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set two limit values for particulate matter (PM10) for the protection of human health: the PM10 daily mean value may not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) more than 35 times in a year and the PM10 annual mean value may not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). In some areas time extensions have been granted by DG Environment for meeting these limit values. Information about time extensions is provided by DG Environment at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).particulate matterhuman healthair qualitypm102014/08/22 14:55:22 GMT+2FigureParticulate matter (PM10) - Daily limit value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/particulate-matter-pm10-daily-limit-value-for-the-protection-of-human-health-6
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set two limit values for particulate matter (PM10) for the protection of human health: the PM10 daily mean value may not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) more than 35 times in a year and the PM10 annual mean value may not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). In some areas time extensions have been granted by DG Environment for meeting these limit values. Information about time extensions is provided by DG Environment at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).air qualitypm10air pollutionparticulate matterhuman healthhealth2014/08/22 13:51:24 GMT+2FigureLead - Annual limit value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/lead-annual-limit-value-for-the-protection-of-human-health
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set a limit value for lead (Pb) for the protection of human health: the Pb annual mean value may not exceed 0.5 milligrams per cubic metre (µg/m3) except in the immediate vicinity of specific, notified industrial sources where the Pb annual mean value may not exceed 1.0 milligram per cubic metre (µg/m3)No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).human healthair qualityleadair pollution2014/08/22 12:02:13 GMT+2FigurePM2.5 - Annual target value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/pm2.5-annual-target-value-4
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set a target value for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the protection of human health: the PM2.5 annual mean value may not exceed 25 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).pm2.5particulate matterhuman healthair qualityair pollution2014/08/22 11:20:46 GMT+2FigureArsenic - Annual target value for the protection of human health https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/arsenic-annual-target-value-4
No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV), European Environment Agency (EEA).arsenichuman healthair qualityair quality zones2014/08/22 11:10:00 GMT+2FigureHealth impacts of air pollutionhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2013/infographics/health-impacts-of-air-pollution/view
Air pollutants can have a serious impact on human health. Children and the elderly are especially vulnerable.No publishersignalssignals2013human healthhealth impactsair pollution2014/06/13 12:05:00 GMT+2InfographicStatus of black carbon monitoring in ambient air in Europehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/status-of-black-carbon-monitoring
This report provides a summary of black carbon (BC) definitions as discussed in the air quality monitoring community. Secondly, it provides a summary of the current status of BC-related monitoring in Europe. Information presented in the report includes an overview of available measurement techniques and associated technical issues, monitoring networks and current data reporting practices. No publisherclimate changeparticulate matterhuman healthblack carboncarbonemissions from transport2013/12/10 09:55:00 GMT+2PublicationAir quality in Europe — 2013 reporthttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2013
This report presents an overview and analysis of
air quality in Europe from 2002 to 2011. It reviews progress
towards meeting the requirements of the air quality
directives and gives an
overview of policies and measures introduced
at European level to improve air quality and
minimise impacts. An overview of the latest findings and
estimates of the effects of air pollution on health
and its impacts on ecosystems is also given. No publisherbenzeneclimate changenitrogen dioxideheavy metalsbenzo(a)pyreneozoneparticulate matterhuman healthcarbon monoxideecosystemssulphur dioxide2013/10/14 16:21:40 GMT+2PublicationFreshwater quality — key message 1https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/freshwater-quality/key-messages/freshwater-quality-2014-message-1
Europe’s freshwaters contain a number of pollutants including nutrients, metals, pesticides, pathogenic micro-organisms, industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals. These can have adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems, degrading habitats and resulting in the loss of freshwater flora and fauna. Poor water quality can also raise concern for human health..
]]>No publisherSOER2010human healthfreshwater qualityecosystems2013/09/06 12:34:00 GMT+2SOER 2010 Message (Deprecated)European Indoor Radon map, December 2011https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/european-indoor-radon-map-december-2011
The map shows the indoor radon concentration averaged over 10x10 km grid cellsNo publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: Joint Research Centre (JRC).human health2013/06/11 11:11:46 GMT+2FigureEnvironment and human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environment-and-human-health
Human health and well‑being are intimately linked to environmental quality. This has been recognised for decades amongst policymakers in Europe, and most recently appears as a cornerstone in the European Commission's proposal for the 7th Environment Action Programme. This report, produced jointly by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), outlines a number of environmental issues with a direct influence on people's health and well-being and is a follow-up and update to the 2005 EEA/JRC report.No publisherhuman health2013/05/30 10:15:00 GMT+2PublicationAir legislation in Europehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2013/articles/air-legislation-in-europe
Air pollution is not the same everywhere. Different pollutants are released into
the atmosphere from a wide range of sources. Once in the atmosphere, they
can transform into new pollutants and spread around the world. Designing and
implementing policies to address this complexity are not easy tasks. Below is an
overview of air legislation in the European Union.The amount of pollutants emitted into the air we breathe has been greatly reduced since the EU introduced policies and measures concerning air quality in the 1970s. Air pollution emissions from many of the major sources including transport, industry, and power generation are now regulated and are generally declining, albeit not always to the extent envisaged.

Targeting pollutants

One way that the EU has achieved this improvement is by setting legally binding and non-binding limits for the whole Union for certain pollutants dispersed in the air. The EU has set standards for particulate matter (PM) of certain sizes, ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, and other pollutants that may have a detrimental effect on human health or ecosystems. Key pieces of legislation that set pollutant limits across Europe include the 2008 Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC), and the 1996 Framework Directive on ambient air quality assessment and management (96/62/EC).

Another approach to legislating for improvements to air quality is through the setting of national annual emission limits for specific pollutants. In these cases, countries are responsible for introducing the measures needed to ensure that their emission levels are below the ceiling set for the relevant pollutant.

The Gothenburg Protocol to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), and the EU National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC) both set annual emissions limits for European countries on air pollutants, including those pollutants responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone pollution. The Gothenburg Protocol was revised in 2012. And the National Emissions Ceilings Directive is up for review and revision in 2013.

Targeting sectors

In addition to setting air quality standards for specific pollutants and annual country-level ceilings, European legislation is also designed to target particular sectors that act as sources of air pollution.

Emissions of air pollutants from the industrial sector are regulated, by among others, the 2010 Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) and the 2001 Directive on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from Large Combustion Plants (2001/80/EC).

Vehicle emissions have been regulated through a series of performance and fuel standards, including the 1998 Directive relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (98/70/EC) and vehicle emission standards, known as the Euro standards.

The Euro 5 and 6 standards cover emissions from light vehicles including passenger cars, vans, and commercial vehicles. The Euro 5 standard came into force on 1 January 2011, and requires all new cars covered by the legislation to emit less particulates and nitrogen oxides than the limits set. Euro 6, which will enter into force in 2015, will impose stricter limits on nitrogen oxides emitted by diesel engines.

There are also international agreements concerning the emissions of air pollutants in other areas of transportation, such as the International Maritime Organization’s 1973 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), with its additional protocols, which regulate sulphur dioxide emissions from shipping.

(c) Javier Arcenillas, ImaginAIR/EEA

"Although fortunately there are still places in Romania almost wild and spectacular, where nature is unstained by the hand of man, in more urbanized areas there is an obvious ecological problem."Javier Arcenillas, Spain

Putting the pieces together

A pollutant is usually regulated by more than one piece of legislation. Particulate matter, for example, is directly addressed by three European legal measures (Directives on ambient air quality and emissions of air pollutants, and the Euro limits on road vehicle emissions) and two international conventions (LRTAP and MARPOL). Some of the PM precursors are tackled by other legal measures.

The implementation of these laws are also spread over a period of time and achieved in stages. For fine particles, the air quality directive sets 25 μg/m3 as a ‘target value’ to be met by 1 January 2010. The same threshold is set to become a ‘limit value’ by 2015, entailing additional obligations.

For some sectors, air policies might first cover certain pollutants in limited parts of Europe. In September 2012, the European Parliament adopted the revisions that brought the EU’s standards on sulphur emissions by ships in line with the International Maritime Organization’s standards from 2008. By 2020, the sulphur limit will be 0.5 % in all the seas around the EU.

For the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel in so-called ‘Sulphur Emission Control Areas’, the European Parliament set an even stricter sulphur limit of 0.1 % by 2015. Considering that standard marine fuel contains 2 700 times more sulphur than conventional diesel for cars, it is clear that this legislation gives strong reasons to the shipping sector to develop and use cleaner fuels.

Implementation on the ground

Current European air-quality legislation is based on the principle that EU Member States divide their territories into a number of management zones in which countries are required to assess air quality using measurement or modelling approaches. Most big cities are declared to be such zones. If air‑quality standards are exceeded in a zone, the Member State has to report to the European Commission and explain the reasons.

The countries are then required to develop local or regional plans describing how they intend to improve the air quality. They could for example establish so-called low-emission zones that restrict access for more polluting vehicles. Cities can also encourage a shift in transport to less polluting modes including walking, cycling, and public transport. They can also ensure that industrial and commercial combustion sources are fitted with emission‑control equipment, according to the latest, best-available technology.

Research is also critical. Not only does research offer us new technologies, it also improves our knowledge of air pollutants and their negative effects on our health and ecosystems. Integrating the latest knowledge into our laws and actions will help us to continue to improve Europe’s air.

(c) Gülçin Karadeniz

More information

]]>No publisherhelpeconomic sectorsnitrogenlong-range transboundary air pollutionuneceenvironmentecosystemssulphur dioxideacidificationpassenger carsstandardsbaltic seanational emissions ceilingspolicies and measureslogsenergyseaeutransportnitrogen oxidesozonecombustionleadpublic transportlrtappassengersdieselresearchparticulate matterhealthair quality directiveeuropeeuropanaturecarsnational emission ceilingscitiesmarineetrair pollution sourcesghg emission targetsindustryshippingpollutioncombibusescontaminationroadscombustion plantsfine particlesgishuman healthphpopmeutrophicationurbanetspetrolsulphurprotocolsplantsemission ceilingsground-level ozoneairunemissionspolicieseu legislationaciditygothenburg protocolindustrial emissions directivemaritime sectorstatesspatechnologyair qualitynational emission ceilings directivepollutantseconomyfuelsmodelswhotransport modesbaltic regiontunadirectiveair pollutionnorth seaagevehiclescover2013/04/15 00:04:12 GMT+2ArticleNumber of reported extreme weather events and wildfire https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/number-of-reported-climate-related
This figure shows the yearly number of extreme weather events (cold, storm, flood and wet mass movement, heat wave, wildfire, drought and drymass movement dry)
in EEA member and collaborating countries in the period 1980 - 2011.No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe).climatehuman healthdisasters2012/11/29 14:15:00 GMT+2FigureClimatic suitability for the mosquitos Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Europehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/climatic-suitability-for-the-mosquitos
This figure shows the climatic suitability for the mosquitos Aedes aegypti (left) and Aedes albopictus (right) in Europe. Darker to lighter green indicates conditions not suitable for the vector whereas yellow to red colours indicate conditions that are increasingly suitable for the vector. Grey indicates that no prediction is possible.No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).climate changehuman healthdiseases2012/11/21 15:55:00 GMT+2FigureLead 2010 - Annual limit value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/lead-2010-annual-limit-value
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set a limit value for lead (Pb) for the protection of human health: the Pb annual mean value may not exceed 0.5 milligrams per cubic metre (µg/m3) except in the immediate vicinity of specific, notified industrial sources where the Pb annual mean value may not exceed 1.0 milligram per cubic metre (µg/m3)No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).human healthair qualityleadair pollution2012/10/16 11:52:52 GMT+2FigureParticulate matter (PM10), 2010 - Daily limit value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/particulate-matter-pm10-2010-daily
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set two limit values for particulate matter (PM10) for the protection of human health: the PM10 daily mean value may not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) more than 35 times in a year and the PM10 annual mean value may not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). In some areas time extensions have been granted by DG Environment for meeting these limit values. Information about time extensions is provided by DG Environment at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).air qualitypm10air pollutionparticulate matterhuman healthhealth2012/10/16 11:42:26 GMT+2FigureOzone 2010 - 8 hour mean target value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/ozone-2010-8-hour-mean
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set a target value and a long term objective value for ozone (O3) for the protection of human health. Target value: the maximum daily eight-hour mean may not exceed 120 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) on more than 25 days per calendar year averaged over three years. Long term objective value: the maximum daily eight-hour mean may not exceed 120 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) within a calendar year.No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).ozonehuman healthair qualityair pollution2012/10/16 11:37:39 GMT+2FigurePM2.5 2010 - Annual target value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/pm2.5-2010-annual-target-value
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set a target value for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the protection of human health: the PM2.5 annual mean value may not exceed 25 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).air qualityair pollutionpm2.5particulate matterhuman health2012/10/16 11:17:35 GMT+2FigureAir quality in Europe — 2012 reporthttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2012
This report presents an overview and analysis of the status and trends of air quality in Europe based on concentration measurements in ambient air and data on anthropogenic emissions and trends from 2001 — when mandatory monitoring of ambient air concentrations of selected pollutants first produced reliable air quality information — to 2010.No publisherbenzenecoairbasenitrogen dioxideheavy metalsbenzo(a)pyreneozoneparticulate matterso2no2carbon monoxidehuman healthair qualityo3sulphur dioxidepm2012/09/21 10:25:00 GMT+2PublicationUp-to-date provisional air quality data in Europe (near real-time data)https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/real-time-air-quality-data
Real-time data from around several thousand air quality measurement stations across Europe are transmitted to the EEA in Copenhagen on an hourly basis. Since the data must be as 'real-time' as possible, the data are displayed as soon as practical after the end of each hour.
No publisherTo get access to the data a formal request and agreement has to be signed. Use is possible if complying with requirements in EEA data policy. Please add request: http://community.eea.europa.eu/air qualitypm10air pollutionground-level ozoneozonenear real-time datageospatial datatraffichuman healthso2o3no22012/08/08 16:15:00 GMT+2DataGreenland’s Health Ministry signs cooperation agreement with EEAhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/greenland2019s-health-ministry-signs-cooperation
The Ministry of Health in Greenland has signed an agreement with the European Environment Agency (EEA). The two organisations committed to exchange personnel, and share knowledge, data and other expertise on environment-related health issues. The aim is to improve the sharing of data and information. Both parties hope that this will contribute to the quality and timeliness of assessments of environmental impacts on human health, both for the European region as a whole and the Arctic region in particular.

In the agreement, signatories note that “Europe leaves a footprint in the Greenlandic and Arctic environment with known, as well as suspected, effects on human health”. Pollutants can be transported across the Atlantic by ocean currents and atmospheric deposition, and may accumulate in certain foods in Greenland.

Another important environmental issue in Greenland is waste management, because waste is often not separated or stored properly so there is a risk it will leach into the surrounding environment. This problem is exacerbated by the long distances between settlements and waste treatment plants. The EEA is working with the Greenlandic government to improve the situation.

In the agreement between the EEA and the Health Ministry, initial priorities for collaboration include establishing a liaison agreement on exchange of personnel. In addition, both parties hope to exchange data, knowledge and information on environment-related health issues. There is particular interest in the effects of chemicals and hazardous substances, the human consequences of waste management, and health impacts of climate change.

Several areas of EEA work are of immediate relevance for the Arctic, such as health impacts of climate change, reducing burdens and health impacts of hazardous chemicals in children, and reducing health inequalities.

The agreement also includes a commitment to share knowledge to improve existing environmental assessments.

The EEA and the Arctic

The EEA is an independent EU Agency that has 32 member countries, including five Arctic states, namely Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. In addition six further EEA member countries are permanent observers in the Arctic Council. Moreover, the EEA and Greenland have been cooperating since 2010.

The EEA is active in environment and health initiatives in Europe, with a dedicated part of its Eionet network looking at Environment and Health. It also cooperates with other relevant partners, including the European Commission, other EU agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO), non-governmental organisations and many other international bodies. In the framework of the WHO-led pan-European Environment and Health process, the EEA is committed to contributing to the implementation of the Declaration of the Fifth Ministerial Conference (Parma, 2010).

]]>No publisherclimate changehuman healthgreenland2012/01/13 16:15:00 GMT+2NewsForests, health and climate changehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/forests-health-and-climate-change
Urban green spaces, forests for cooler cities and healthier peopleNo publisherurbanecosystem servicesrecreational areasair qualityflood managementgreen urban areasgreen spaceclimate changeurban air qualityforestsglobal warmingforestryurban populationhuman healthheat wavesurban forests2011/12/19 12:35:00 GMT+2PublicationAreas of possible establishment of Aedes albopictus (the tiger mosquito) in Europe for 2010 and 2030https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/areas-of-possible-establishment-of-aedes-albopictus-the-tiger-mosquito-in-europe-for-2010-and
Developed by Francis Schaffner (BioSys Consultancy, Zurich), in partnership with Guy Hendrickx/Ernst-Jan Scholte (AviaGIS, Zoersel, Belgium) and Jolyon M Medlock (Health Protection Agency, United Kingdom) for the ECDC TigerMaps projectNo publisherAccess is managed by the owner mentioned below. Please contact the owner for more information about their data policy.climate changeclimatehuman healthdiseases2011/12/07 13:05:00 GMT+2FigureAir pollution impacts from carbon capture and storage (CCS)https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/carbon-capture-and-storage
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) consists of the
capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants
and/or CO2-intensive industries such as refineries,
cement, iron and steel, its subsequent transport
to a storage site, and finally its injection into a
suitable underground geological formation for the
purposes of permanent storage. It is considered to
be one of the medium term 'bridging technologies'
in the portfolio of available mitigation actions for
stabilising concentrations of atmospheric CO2, the
main greenhouse gas (GHG).No publisherCO2air pollutioncarbon dioxideoxy-fuel combustionparticulate matterCCSCO2 leakageNOXNH3sulfur dioxidehuman healthcarbon storagecarbon captureammoniaSO2PMnitrogen oxidesgreenhouse gasesghg emissions2011/11/17 17:50:00 GMT+2PublicationEurope's forests at a glance — a breath of fresh air in a changing climatehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/europes-forests-at-a-glance
Forests do not only provide us food, fibre and medicine, they
regulate our climate and improve our quality of life. Human
activities and climate change exert increasing pressure on our forest
resources and the services they provide. With increasing demand
on forests services on the one side, and uncertainty and risks linked
to climate change on the other, we need to ensure that forests can
continue fulfilling their multifunctional role.No publishercarbon sinkair qualityquality of lifesustainable forest managementclimate changeforest biodiversityforest ecosystemsforestsglobal warminghabitats directiveforest managementrecreational areasloggingsemi-natural habitatsforest fireshuman healthhabitat fragmentationforest conservationbiofuelswood supply2011/10/18 17:25:00 GMT+2PublicationNew film on waste management in Greenlandhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/new-film-on-waste-management
Dealing with large quantities of unwanted (and sometimes toxic) waste is often difficult – but it becomes even more complicated when people live in isolated communities, in extreme environments hundreds of kilometres from the nearest treatment plant. This is the subject of a new film considering waste management in Greenland, entitled ‘Mission Greenland – for a cleaner future’.The short film was produced by the European Environment Agency (EEA). It focuses on the management of household waste - including hazardous materials - demonstrating how even small efforts by local people can make a big difference in waste management and protecting the environment.

Only 25 % of household waste in Greenland is delivered to recycling stations, so the EEA hopes its new film will inspire residents, in particular youth and children in Greenland and across the Arctic region to change their behaviour. The film will also be supplemented with some educational material for schoolchildren.

The 12 minute film was introduced by EEA Executive Director Prof. Jacqueline McGlade, and Hon. Anthon Frederiksen, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Nature and Environment in Greenland.

Waste management challenges

Sound waste management in remote areas like the Arctic is always going to be costly. Large-scale modern waste management systems cannot just be copied wholesale from elsewhere in Europe or North America. Greenland, with its harsh natural environment and dispersed population requires unique solutions tailored to the country’s context.

Because the huge distances and costs involved, much of the waste in Greenland has been (and in many cases continues to be) tipped into landfills just outside city or settlement limits. And without waste separation, household waste is often mixed with more hazardous waste types like batteries, leftover paint, nail polish or other chemicals.

These hazardous materials can affect the health of the local population when they enter the air through incineration or seep out of landfills which often lack protective layers to avoid leakage. Chemicals can seep down towards the coastal waters where Arctic people catch the fish, shrimp and sea mammals which make up a large part of their diet.

However, there are also some positive stories. For example, 99 % of all plastic and glass bottles used on the west coast of Greenland are returned to recycling plants, making country an inspiring example to the rest of the world.

The film considers this complex situation, proposing solutions which allow Greenlanders to manage waste without damaging their natural environment. Greenland is famous for its awe-inspiring natural landscapes, but this environment is extremely fragile, making the case for better waste management even more urgent.

Watch the English version:

]]>No publisherindustrial wasteelectronic wastewaste managementhazardous wasterecyclingenergy productionsorting wastelandfillwaste incinerationrubbishair pollutionhuman healthwastetourismhousehold wasteburning waste2011/10/13 14:00:00 GMT+2NewsHealth risks from mobile phone radiation – why the experts disagreehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/health-risks-from-mobile-phone
Mobile phones and other digital devices are now a big part of modern life – but are they dangerous? There were an estimated 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide by the end of 2010, so if mobile phone use is linked to head cancers, the implications are immense. We look at the scientific uncertainty in this area, and what this means for policy.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a global authority on cancer, recently concluded that radiation from mobile phones is a ‘possible’ head cancer risk. However, scientific opinion is split on the issue – many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) recommends taking a precautionary approach to policy making in this area. This position is based on an evaluation of the existing evidence and on the lessons from earlier hazards, analysed in the EEA “Late Lessons from Early Warnings” project.

“Mobile phones have numerous social, economic and even environmental benefits”, said David Gee, EEA Senior Advisor on Science, Policy and Emerging Issues. “However, there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about whether mobile phone use increases the risk of head cancers. We recommend using the precautionary principle to guide policy decisions in cases like this. This means that although our understanding is incomplete, this should not prevent policy makers from taking preventative action”.

Why do scientists disagree?

One reason scientists disagree is because the mechanisms by which the radiations from mobile phones could cause cancer are not yet understood. However, waiting for that knowledge could take decades: the biological mechanisms connecting tobacco smoke and cancer are still not fully understood, some 60 years after the first published studies linked smoking and lung cancer.

Another area of uncertainty is the design of animal studies, investigating the effects of electro-magnetic fields (EMF) from mobile phones and cancers. A few studies suggest a positive link, but many others fail to find any. But even if all animal studies were negative, this would not necessarily indicate a negative result in humans, as human reactions can be very different compared to those of animals. For example, animal evidence of smoking and lung cancer came only after evidence in humans was established.

Human studies may be inconclusive for several reasons. For example, any brain cancer effects of prolonged mobile phone use could take many years to develop and analyse, whereas mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a couple of decades. The evidence linking smoking or asbestos and lung cancer only became clear 20-25 years after first mass exposures began.

Nonetheless, there are some examples of scientifically rigorous research which already indicate a risk from mobile phones. As the EEA has often noted, potential early warnings such as these should not be ignored, especially given the serious and irreversible nature of any cancer effects and the large numbers exposed, which includes vulnerable groups such as children.

The precautionary principle

Because the evidence on mobile phones and cancer presents a mixed picture, the EEA recommends using the precautionary principle (PP), as recommended in the EU Treaty, to better manage the risk. There is no clear legal definition of the PP so the EEA has produced a working definition:

The precautionary principle provides justification for public policy actions in situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty and ignorance, where there may be a need to avoid, or reduce, potentially serious or irreversible threats to health and the environment, using an appropriate strength of scientific evidence, and taking into account the pros and cons of action and inaction.

The PP requires us to weigh evidence in a different way. This is not new - societies are used to using different strengths of evidence for different reasons, based on the costs of being wrong.

For example, criminals must be found guilty ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ before they are convicted; injured people in compensation cases need only show a balance of evidence in order to win compensation for negligence; while doctors only need slight evidence of a serious illness to prescribe treatment. Such precautionary approaches are justified where it is not yet possible to establish causality beyond reasonable doubt.

Implications for policy makers and the mobile phone industry

Citizens could be better informed about the risks of mobile phone use, as recommended by the EEA in September 2007. There is sufficient evidence of risk to advise people, especially children, not to place the handset against their heads: text messaging, or hands-free kits lead to about ten times lower radiation levels, on average, than when the phone is pressed to the head.

Governments may also wish to label mobile handsets as a ‘possible carcinogen’, in line with the IARC decision. In addition, more independent research is needed. The cost of these measures is very low, but the potential costs of inaction may be very high.

Additional information

]]>No publisherprecautionary principlehuman healthcancermobile phones2011/10/12 17:33:27 GMT+2NewsParticulate matter (PM10) - Annual limit value for the protection of human healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/particulate-matter-pm10-annual-limit-value-for-the-protection-of-human-health-3
In the air quality directive (2008/EC/50), the EU has set two limit values for particulate matter (PM10) for the protection of human health: the PM10 daily mean value may not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) more than 35 times in a year and the PM10 annual mean value may not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). In some areas time extensions have been granted by DG Environment for meeting these limit values. Information about time extensions is provided by DG Environment at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV), European Environment Agency (EEA).particulate matterhuman healthair qualitypm10air pollution2011/09/22 09:54:54 GMT+2FigureSuitability of the establishment of the tiger mosquito under the minimum climate change scenario, long term (2030)https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/suitability-of-the-establishment-of
Projected suitability of the establishment of the tiger mosquitoNo publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).climate changesoer2010human healththematic assessmentsadaptation2011/01/12 19:45:00 GMT+2FigureAdapting to climate change — key message 2https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/adapting-to-climate-change/key-messages/adapting-to-climate-change-2014-2
A temperature rise of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial levels is likely to cause major societal, economic and environmental disruption, making it challenging for human and natural systems to adapt at affordable costs. Climate change will affect the vulnerability of European society to an array of threats to human health, almost all economic sectors, ecosystem goods and services and biodiversity..]]>No publishersoer2010biodiversityclimate changeecosystem serviceshuman healthadaptationecosystemstemperatures2010/11/28 21:40:00 GMT+2SOER 2010 Message (Deprecated)Urban environment - SOER 2010 thematic assessmenthttps://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/urban-environment
The global population is congregating in our cities. Eighty per cent of the world’s estimated nine billion people in 2050 are expected to live in urban areas. Our cities and urban areas face many challenges from social to health to environmental. The impacts of cities and urban areas are felt in other regions which supply cities with food, water and energy and absorb pollution and waste. However, the proximity of people, businesses and services associated with the very word ‘city’ means that there are also huge opportunities. Indeed, well designed, well managed urban settings offer a key opportunity for sustainable living.No publisherclimate change impactstemperature increasewater qualityurban sprawlsocial inequalitiessoil sealingurban environmentwelfareeducationsoer2010air qualitygreen urban areasurbanisationgreen spacehousingdroughtshuman healthresource efficiencyincomepublic spaceenvironmental footprintwastewater quantityurbannoisethematic assessmentsquality of lifesustainable housingpublic healthtrafficheat wavessocial equitycitiesurban areaspopulationurban ecosystemsfloodssustainable developmentclimate change mitigationurban designclimate change adaptationconsumption patternsovercrowdingpollution2010/11/25 18:25:00 GMT+2PublicationAir pollution — SOER 2010 thematic assessmenthttps://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/air-pollution
Emissions of air pollutants derive from almost all economic and societal activities. They result
in clear risks to human health and ecosystems. In Europe, policies and actions at all levels have
greatly reduced anthropogenic emissions and exposure but some air pollutants still harm human
health. Similarly, as emissions of acidifying pollutants have reduced, the situation for Europe's rivers
and lakes has improved but atmospheric nitrogen oversupply still threatens biodiversity in sensitive
terrestrial and water ecosystems. The movement of atmospheric pollution between continents
attracts increasing political attention. Greater international cooperation, also focusing on links
between climate and air pollution policies, is required more than ever to address air pollution.No publisherenergy production emissionsclimate changeroad transportatmospheric pollutantsPbPM2.5nitrogenSOxemissions from transportO3ammoniaNO2leadatmospheric nitrogenroad freightGothenburg Protocolparticulate matterhuman healthacidificationPMCOpassenger transportglobal warmingnon-methane volatile organic compoundsSO2NH3carbon monoxideair pollution from energysulphur dioxidewoodSOER2010PM10air pollutionnitrogen dioxideground-level ozonecoalNOXNational Emission Ceilings Directivethematic assessmentsecosystemscarshouseholdsanthropogenic GHG emissions2010/11/25 18:22:55 GMT+2PublicationThe European environment – state and outlook 2010: Synthesishttps://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/synthesis/synthesis
The SOER 2010 Synthesis provides an overview of the European environment's state, trends and prospects, integrating the main findings of SOER 2010.No publisherclimate change impactsclimate change consequencesclimate changerecyclingmarine ecosystemstradesocial inequalitiessoil functionsglobal consumptionmegatrendsresilienceoverfishingsoer2010decouplingroad trafficemissions from agricultureland usewaste managementforestsecological footprintwater resourceshuman healthhealthkyoto protocollife expectancyfreshwater ecosystemsenvironmental footprintwastepollutantswater quantityresource useecosystem servicesgreenhouse gas emissionsclimate change and healthquality of lifestate of the environmentbiodiversity losskyoto targetsreachpolicy integrationglobal warmingresource efficiencylife-cycle thinkingfarmlandtemperature increaseconservation of biodiversityecosystemseuropean neighbourhoodwaste water treatmentbiodiversitygreen economynatural resourceslong-term perspectiveair pollutionterrestrial ecosystemsland conversionnatural capitalpesticidesglobal tradeold-growth forestsclimate change adaptationgreen urban areaswater demandgrasslandwaste disposalnatureconsumption patterns2010/11/22 21:09:38 GMT+2PublicationTemperature-mortality relationship in 15 European citieshttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/daily-mortality-rates-in-15-european-cities-by-apparent-temperature-in-summer-time
Figure shows relationship between daily maximum apparent temperature (Barcelona: mean apparent temperature) and natural mortality (blue) and 95% confidence interval (grey).No publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA), World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe).climatedeaththematic assessmentsclimate changesoer2010global warminghuman healthtemperaturesurban environmentmortality2009/11/12 20:50:00 GMT+2FigurePercentage change of weekly salmonella cases by 1 oC temperature increasehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/percentage-change-of-weekly-salmonella-cases-by-1-oc-temperature-increase
The figure shows the percentage change of weekly salmonella cases 1 degree Celcius
temperature increaseNo publisherEEA standard re-use policy: unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/copyright). Copyright holder: European Environment Agency (EEA).climatefoodclimate changehuman healthtemperaturesdiseases2009/11/12 17:49:34 GMT+2FigureExplore the NOISEhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/media/audiovisuals/explore-the-noise/view
Noise affects a large number of Europeans, which perceive it as one of the major environmental problems. It can affect people in both physiological and psychological ways, interfering with basic activities such as sleep, rest, study and communication. The NOISE database establishes a system of source identification, noise mapping and population exposure assessments based upon noise indicators for Europe. No publisherurbannoisetransport noisenoise databasenoise exposurehuman healthurban environment2009/10/26 13:00:00 GMT+2FileEnsuring quality of life in Europe's cities and townshttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/quality-of-life-in-Europes-cities-and-towns
In May 2008, the Council of Europe's Congress
of Local and Regional Authorities captured the
concerns and desires of urban policy‑makers
and citizens in the title of its new European
Urban Charter: Manifesto for a new urbanity.
Like numerous other international and European
charters, conventions and declarations, the
manifesto describes with some apprehension the
'unprecedented environmental, democratic, cultural,
social and economic challenges' facing urban centres
and their inhabitants.
Our report on quality of life in Europe's cities and
towns reiterates these concerns but also unravels the
many apparent paradoxes of urban development
and the sometimes perplexing realities of urban
Europe today. The report defines a vision for
progress towards a more sustainable, well‑designed
urban future.No publisherurbannoiseeu cohesion policyconsumptionquality of lifeclimate changeurbanisationhuman healthurban policysocial equityair pollutioncitieseu policyurban lifestyleintegrated urban management2009/05/28 14:45:00 GMT+2PublicationAir pollution by ozone across Europe during summer 2008https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-pollution-by-ozone-across-europe-during-summer-2008-1
Overview of exceedances of EC ozone threshold values
for April–September 2008No publisherozone health impactsair qualityair pollutionsummer ozone episodesground-level ozoneozonehuman healthozone air pollutiono32009/03/24 17:25:00 GMT+2PublicationEEA Briefing 3/2008 - Impacts of Europe's changing climatehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/briefing_2008_3
Global climate change is a reality. In Europe the most vulnerable regions are the Arctic,
mountain areas, coastal zones and the Mediterranean. Key economic sectors, which will
need to adapt include energy supply, health, water management, agriculture, forestry,
tourism and transport.No publisherclimate change impactssea level risebiodiversitygreenhouse gas emissionsmountain areasecosystemssoildroughtsglobal warmingclimate change mitigationclimate change adaptationbathing water qualityfloodsclimate changehuman healthagricultureforest fireswater quantity2009/01/28 03:00:00 GMT+2PublicationImpacts of Europe's changing climate - 2008 indicator-based assessmenthttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2008_4
This report is an update and extension of the 2004
EEA Report Impacts of Europe's changing climate.
The main part of this report summarises the
relevance, past trends and future projections for
about 40 indicators (from 22 in the 2004 report).
The report also addresses adaptation and the
economics of climate change impacts and adaptation
strategies and policies, and data availability and
uncertainty.No publisherclimate change impactsatmosphererecreational areasclimate changemarine ecosystemscryosphereagriculturedroughtscosts of inactionforestryextreme weather eventshuman healthcop15soilpublic water supplyecosystem servicesnatureeuropean adaptation strategyglobal warmingbiodiversity indicatorsdrinking waterwater qualitytourismcoastal ecosystemsbiodiversityterrestrial ecosystemsfloodsnational adaptation strategies2008/09/29 13:30:00 GMT+2PublicationAir pollution by ozone across Europe during summer 2007https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2008_5
No publisherground-level ozoneair pollutionozone precursorsozonehuman healthozone air pollutionO3summer ozone episodes2008/04/30 00:00:00 GMT+2PublicationRepairing our ozone layerhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/multimedia/repairing-our-ozone-layer/view
In 1987, delegates from around the world signed the Montreal Protocol designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of substances believed to be responsible for ozone depletion. This recent video illustrates the results of the Protocol, which is considered to be one of the most successful international environmental agreements.No publisherozone layerground-level ozoneclimate changeMontreal protocolozonehuman healthUV raysskin cancerozone holetourismozone depletionozone depleting substancesgreenhouse gaseschlorofluorocarbon2008/02/27 19:16:47 GMT+2FileGiving Europe more breathing spacehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/multimedia/giving-europe-more-breathing-space/view
Air pollution has been one of Europe’s main concerns since the late 1970s. Over the last few decades, the rapid growth in industry and increased reliance on cars and public transport has contributed to a rapid decline in air quality, from smog and acid rain to asthma and other respiratory diseases.No publisherair pollutant emissionsair qualityblack triangleair pollutionpublic transportacid rainfuel consumptionSO2particle emissionshuman healthasthmasmogemissions from transportrespiratory diseasesultrafine particlesearly environmental policiesenvironmental policycycles2008/02/27 18:48:25 GMT+2FileClean air for Europehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/multimedia/clean-air-for-europe/view
Air pollution is a growing concern in the area of public health. Scientific research shows that air pollutants are behind a higher number of diseases such as respiratory allergies, asthma and inflammatory conditions. It is the most vulnerable segments of populations, the elderly and children, who are the first to be affected by this phenomenon. In May 2001, the European Commission launched its " Clean Air for Europe " (CAFE) programme. This is a three-year programme intended to investigate all sources of air pollution and provide solutions to reduce them.No publishertransport emissionshydrocarbonsair qualityair pollutionindustryroad transportdieselshippinghuman healthexhaust gasnitrous oxideCAFEagriculturecarbon monoxideground-level ozonefuel cellsultrafine particleselectric cars2008/02/27 11:53:36 GMT+2FileClimate change: the cost of inaction and the cost of adaptationhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2007_13
Climate change: the cost of inaction and the cost of adaptationNo publisherenergy demandintegrated assessmentcosts of inactionclimate change consequencesclimate changeadaptation strategiesecosystem servicesglobal warmingwinter sportsextreme weather eventsclimate change adaptationpolicy instrumentseconomic assessmentswater shortagetourismhuman healthagriculturecross-sectoral adaptationcoastal ecosystemscosts of adaptation2007/12/19 12:55:00 GMT+2PublicationThe fourth assessment: Presentation of the report at the Belgrade conferencehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/regions/pan-european/the-belgrade-ministerial-conference/videos-and-interviews/fourth-assessment-presentation/view
Subtitled movie of the speech hold by Executive Director of the EEA Jacqueline McGlade during the presentation of the 4th pan-European assessment at the UNECE 6th Мinisterial Conference "Environment for Europe", in Belgrade, 10th of October 2007.
No publisherthreatened speciesclimate changemarine ecosystemspopulation densitywater pollutionseahousehold consumptionemissions from transportoverfishingpublic awarenessparticulate matterhuman healthbiodiversity lossEEA producteutrophicationSEISecosystem services2010 biodiversity targetnatureEEA rolewater qualityBelgrade conferencebiodiversitynatural resourcesair pollutionenergy uselandfillclimate change adaptationinvasive speciespermafrostpan-European environmentcoastal ecosystemsultrafine particlesEnvironment for EuropeArctic regionoil spillsglaciersconsumption patternseconomic inequalitiesgreenhouse gas emissions2007/11/29 17:01:47 GMT+2FileAir pollution by ozone in Europe in summer 2006https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2007_5
No publisherground-level ozoneair pollutionozone precursorsozonehuman healthozone air pollutionO3summer ozone episodes2007/03/15 10:30:00 GMT+2PublicationFeasibility assessment of using the Substance Flow Analysis Methodology for chemicals information at macro-levelhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2007_1
Feasibility assessment of using the Substance Flow Analysis Methodology for chemicals information at macro-levelNo publishermaterial flow analysishazardous chemicalschemicalshuman healthmaterial flowshazardous substances2007/02/15 11:00:00 GMT+2PublicationAir pollution by ozone in Europe in summer 2005https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2006_3
No publisherozone health impactsair qualityair pollutionground-level ozoneozonehuman healthozone air pollutionO3summer ozone episodes2006/06/16 16:00:00 GMT+2PublicationAir quality and ancillary benefits of climate change policieshttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2006_4
The Thematic Strategy on air pollution aims to improve European air pollution significantly by 2020. This report from the European Environment Agency looks a further ten years into the future, and brings together two major policy challenges — combating climate change and reducing air pollution — in an integrated way. Thus, the report analyses projected changes in European air quality up to 2030, and explores the possible benefits of climate policies on air quality and the costs of air pollution abatement.No publisherair pollutant emissionsair quality forecastingpm2.5cafeco2air qualityglobal megatrendsparticulate matterhuman healtho3urban air qualityeutrophicationhealth impactspublic healthso2noxnh3ecosystemsurban areaspm10air pollutionground-level ozoneshippingozoneclimate change mitigation2006/06/01 19:00:00 GMT+2PublicationEEA Briefing 2/2006 - Air quality and ancillary benefits of climate change policieshttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/briefing_2006_2
No publisherair pollutant emissionsair qualityground-level ozoneclimate changePM2.5global warmingozoneparticulate matterhuman healthshippingnitrogen oxidesO3sulphur dioxidefine particlesgreenhouse gas emissions2006/05/11 16:00:00 GMT+2PublicationTransport and environment: facing a dilemma - TERM 2005https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_3
Indicators tracking transport and environment in the European UnionNo publishertechnological innovationcar ownershiproad transporteconomic growthemissions from transporttransportair qualitydecouplingroad freighthuman healthpassenger transportfreight transportrailfuel efficiencycar occupancyGDPKyoto targetsCO2lorry load factorair transportcoachesbiofuelsgreenhouse gas emissionsbusestransport pricesfuelstransport indicators2006/03/28 00:01:00 GMT+2PublicationAir pollution at street level in European citieshttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2006_1
No publisherstreet incrementair qualityPM10air pollutionnitrogen oxidesurban air qualityPM2.5particulate matterhuman healthNOxemissions from transportnitrogen dioxideNO2fine particlesAirBase2006/03/21 15:00:00 GMT+2PublicationInterview with health experthttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/multimedia/interview-with-health-expert/view
Gabriele Schöning - EEA expert on Human Health
"People might have different opinions about what are the most important environmental issues at the moment. A very important thing definitely is climate change and how this will affect the whole environment but also human health by increasing ultra-violet radiation which might lead to skin cancers.
Other more up to date problems are air pollution problems - although it has become better it is still a thing which affects children's health and is causing allergies.
Another point is water quality which, for instance, comes up in old cities where you still have lead water pipes in the houses and this can lead to complications for children and can reduce children's intelligence."No publisherair pollutionclimate changeUV rayshuman healthwater qualityskin cancer2006/02/02 01:00:00 GMT+2FileEnvironment and our healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/multimedia/environment-and-our-health
No publisherdieselcarbon monoxideorganophosphatemercuryindoor pollutionpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonssunlightparticulate matterhuman healthhealthcarbon dioxidedust mitespentachlorophenolelectromagnetic fieldvolatile organic compoundsDDTSO2UV rayslow level ozoneCO2tobaccosulfur dioxideradonemissionschemicalsradiationspetrol emissionsanimalspesticidesfungicides2006/02/02 01:00:00 GMT+2Animation (swf)EEA report 1/2006 - Using the market for cost-effective environmental policyhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_1
This summary report and the larger report on which it is based ("Market-based instruments for environmental policy in Europe") include an overview of the use and experience of environmental taxes and charges, emissions trading schemes, subsidies, deposit-refund systems, and liability and compensation requirements, as tools for achieving environmental objectives in the whole European area.No publishercap and tradehidden costs of productionmbiclimate changesubsidiesrecyclingeconomic growthfertilisersenvironmental policyagriculturetradable permitsgreen purchasinghuman healthresource efficiencyconservation of biodiversitywastecongestion chargesenvironmental chargesliability and compensation schemesenvironmental taxesenergy efficiencysocial equitypricesmunicipal wastegreen economyhousehold wasteindustrial wastepesticidespricing policymarket-based instrumentsemissionssustainable consumption and production2006/01/26 11:00:00 GMT+2PublicationEnvironment and healthhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2005_10
No publisherclimate change impactsEMFcancerclimate change consequencesclimate changenoisesmokingPAHCAFEO3NO2mercuryasthmaleadheavy metalsREACHpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsSO2POPsparticulate matterhuman healthhealthsulphur dioxidechildhood cancerrespiratory diseasesallergyasbestosphthalatesDDTcadmiumPBCUV raysair qualityskin cancerelectromagnetic fieldendocrine disruptionPM10air pollutionground-level ozonepolychlorinated biphenylsPM2.5persistent organic pollutantsneurodevelopmental disordershealth impactspesticidesflame-retardantshazardous chemicalsnitrogen oxideschemicalslung diseasesdioxins2006/01/04 10:00:00 GMT+2Publication